Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A case study in the restructuring of linguistic knowledge among adult ESL students Fazio, Ronald John 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_fazio_ronald_john.pdf [ 4.65MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078111.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078111-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078111-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078111-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078111-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078111-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078111-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078111-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078111.ris

Full Text

A CASE STUDY IN THE RESTRUCTURING OF LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGEAMONG ADULT ESL STUDENTSbyRONALD JOHN FAZIOB.A., The University of Lethbridge, 1982A THESIS SUBMIT I ED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDepartment of Language EducationWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMay, 1992© Ronald John Fazio, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of Language EducationThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate	 May 25, 1992DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThis study examines two cases of Japanese learnersinvolved in an eight-month university exchange program inCanada. Case A, comprised of one male and one femalesubject, was classified as containing "advanced" speakersof English, while Case B, also composed of one male andone female subject, was classified as containing "novice"speakers of English. For the first time in their careersas second language students, these subjects experienced atask-based, process approach to learning mediated throughstudent group membership.The study attempted a psycholinguistic analysis ofindividual styles of second language acquisition (SLA)through an examination of the use of three kinds ofperformance features: self repairs, repeats and hesitationpauses. It also attempted to draw a sociolinguisticportrait of these subjects as learners whose strategiesfor language acquisition were related to educational andcultural factors.Although the findings in psycho- and sociolinguisticareas of inquiry were inconclusive regarding the role ofrestructuring, the results indicated that changes inprocedural knowledge regarding strategic behaviouroccurred for both cases, and that a more autonomousattitude towards group control of behaviour wasarticulated by the Case A subjects. Changes iniiorientations to learning as measured by performancefeature use were not significant, although a trend towardsdecreased use of hesitation pauses in Case B suggested areduced reliance on unverbalized planning. Finally, bothcases demonstrated growth in the use of such readingstrategies as scanning for main ideas and using contextualclues.iiiTABLE OF CONTENTSpageABSTRACT 	 iiTABLE OF CONTENTS 	 ivLIST OF TABLES 	 viiiLIST OF FIGURES 	 ixACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 	 xCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 	 1Background of the Study	 1Purpose of the Study	 3Practical Significance of the Study 	 4CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 	 7The Cognitive Perspective	 7Cognitive Theory and Second Language Acquisition	 8Automaticity and Restructuring 	 9Consciousness and Second Language Acquisition	 14The Questions of Interface and Introspection	 15Restructuring and Culturally-Based Knowledge 	 18Types of Strategic Behaviour 	 24Learning Strategies 	 30A Typology of Second Language Learners'Strategies 	 32Summary 	 34CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 	 37Research Problems 	 37The Research Design 	 38ivTABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)PagePurposeful Sampling Strategies	 38Data Collection Strategies	 39Instrumentation 	 42Development of a Typology of Strategies	 43Definition of Terms	 46The Use of Video-taped Data	 47Selection of Site	 48The Classes	 50Summary 	 53CHAPTER 4: RESULTS	 55Homogeneity of Experience	 55The Cases 	 58Case A: The Advanced Speakers	 591) The Use of Performance Features	 59Comprehension Checks	 662) Introspective Observations on the Use ofPerformance Features	 663) Dynamics of Communication in theGroup Sessions 	 704) Changes in Learning Strategies Over Time	 735) The Restructuring of Procedural KnowledgeRelated to Linguistic Behaviour	 79a) Psycholinguistic Knowledge	 79b) Canadian Sociolinguistic Knowledge	 81c) Strategic Behaviour	 82vTABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)PageSummary for Case A	 83Case B: The Novice Speakers	 841) The Use of Performance Features	 84Comprehension Checks 	 902) Introspective Observations on the Use ofPerformance Features	 903) Dynamics of Communication in theGroup Sessions	 914) Changes in Learning Strategies Over Time	 945) The Restructuring of Procedural KnowledgeRelated to Linguistic Behaviour	 99a) Psycholinguistic Knowledge	 99b) Canadian Sociolinguistic Knowledge...101c) Strategic Behaviour	 102Summary for Case B	 103Comparison/Contrast of the Two Cases	 104a) Psycholinguistic Behaviour	 104b) Sociolinguistic Behaviour	 105c) Strategic Behaviour 	 105Summary	 106CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONSAND CONCLUSION 	 109Summary 	 109Limitations of the Study 	 110Implications for Educational Practice	 110Implications for SLA Research	 112viTABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)PageConclusion 	 115REFERENCES	 117APPENDICES (A-G) 	 125A: The Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) 	 126B: Interview Protocol Used to AssessParticipants' Backgrounds 	 129C: Course Outline: ENED 379--InterculturalCommunication in Second Language Education	 134D: Distribution of Performance Features (PF) byInterview and Group Session (Number/Percent)	 136E: Sample of Coded Transcripts	 144F: Letter of Initial Contact andSubject Consent Form	 151G: Letter of Consent 	 154viiLIST OF TABLESTable 	 Page1 Composition of the Cases	 392 Descriptive Analysis of Alpha and Beta Classes	 523 Case A: Turns Embedded with Performance Features	 654 Case A: Reported Change in the UseOf Learning Strategies	 745 Case B: Turns Embedded with Performance Features	 896 Case B: Reported Change in the UseOf Learning Strategies	 94viiiLIST OF FIGURESFigure	 Page1 A typology of strategies related tolearning a second language	 332 A model of the factors involved in restructuring	 363 Working typology 	 454 Comparison of Case A corrective performancefeatures by questionnaire/interview	 605 Comparison of Case A corrective performancefeatures by group session	 616 Comparison of Case A planful performancefeatures by questionnaire/interview	 627 Comparison of Case A planful performancefeatures by group session	 638 Comparison of Case B corrective performancefeatures by questionnaire/interview	 859 Comparison of Case B corrective performancefeatures by group session	 8610 Comparison of Case B planful performancefeatures by questionnaire/interview	 8711 Comparison of Case B planful performancefeatures by group session	 88ixACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe thoughts, encouragement and assistance of manyindividuals went into the making of this project. I wouldlike to take this opportunity to thank several inparticular without whose help this thesis might still befar from completion.First and foremost, a heartfelt thanks to theRitsumeikan students, eight initially and four finally,who volunteered so much of their time. Their good humourand enthusiasm made the data collection process a mostenjoyable experience.Rick Berwick, my advisor, for always being there tolisten and offer insights and plans of action, and for hisstrong encouragement to do the best job I was capable of.Gloria Tang and Margaret Early, the other members ofmy committee, both of whom directed many helpful commentsmy way. I am particularly grateful to them for putting upwith phone calls from me at all the wrong hours.The four UBC-Ritsumeikan Exchange Programmeinstructors in whose classes observation took place werewithout exception helpful, kind, and tolerant of observersbearing a profusion of microphones, cords and cameras inthe midst of their lessons.Taeko Berwick and Hiroko Cameron graciously providedassistance with Japanese-English interpretations.Melodie Cook and Jean Hamilton helped out mostadmirably with technical matters.Finally, to my wife Ira, who managed to keep ourhousehold running smoothly despite a cranky husband boundto his keyboard, and to my son Stephen, for many much-needed breaks on the soccer pitch when the going gottough.CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTIONBackground of the StudyRestructuring has been advanced by a number ofresearchers (Rumelhart & Norman, 1978; Cheng, 1985;Karmiloff-Smith, 1986; McLaughlin, 1990) as a means ofexplaining the nature of first and second languageacquisition. Restructuring is seen as a process wherehigher order cognitive knowledge re-organizes lower orderlinguistic knowledge into forms approximating those of thetarget language. In this way, "bits and pieces" ofgrammatical and lexical knowledge gradually develop intonative speaker fluency, in the case of first languagelearners. For adult second language learners, nativespeaker levels of fluency are rarely, if ever achieved;rather, the restructuring of linguistic knowledge wouldappear to play an integral part in the development of afunctional and evolving interlanguage, wherenon-systematic variability of form gradually gives way tosystematicity (Ellis, 1985a).One way of explaining the restructuring process is toexamine conceptions of and changes in knowledge. A relatedconcept in cognitive psychology may be that of thedevelopment of procedural knowledge and practicalexpertise in a given field (Anderson, 1983). Proceduralknowledge--a knowledge of the steps involved in1actualizing a goal--has been studied by cognitivepsychologists under the premise that "mind is betterconstrued in terms of what it can do than in terms of whatit 'knows'" (Kolers & Roediger, 1984, p. 440). Thus,procedural knowledge has been studied with reference tosocialization processes and expert-novice communicationamong professionals--areas requiring a situation-specifictype of knowledge transcending a merely factualunderstanding. In second language acquisition, proceduralknowledge would appear to be operative in languagelearning strategies (Faerch & Kasper, 1987; O'Malley &Chamot, 1990), in that these strategies constituteknowledge of specific procedures necessary to putpedagogical material to practical use, or to clarifymisunderstandings.Performance features--aspects of oral production suchas self repair, hesitation pauses, and repeats--arethought to be indicators of strategic behaviour (Faerch &Kasper, 1983c). Seliger (1980) has argued that performancefeatures may be indicative of either "planful" or"corrective" orientations to second language production.As such, performance features would appear to be componentparts of procedural knowledge in that they are theexternal manifestations of a cognitive decision-makingprocess. Seliger's classification provides an interestingconceptual framework upon which to analyze the function2and importance of performance features vis-a-vis strategicbehaviour and second language acquisition.In summary, the current understanding ofrestructuring among adult learners of a second language isincomplete. What is known, based on observations of theselearners, is that the restructuring process is almostalways incomplete before fossilization of interlanguageforms appears, and that a number of socio-cultural andmotivational variables interact with the cognitiveprocesses involved in restructuring. The development ofprocedural knowledge appears to be a fundamental componentof restructuring but, when placed within a broaderperspective, it would also seem to play an integral partin the learning of socio-cultural norms of communicativebehaviour. For the second language learner, these norms ofbehaviour may inhibit the restructuring process when theyare not in accord with the communicative behaviour oftarget language speakers. Thus, restructuring may not be apurely linguistic process; the degree to which a learnersuccessfully acquires a second language may depend on thedegree to which he or she adapts to culturally-determined(i.e., "practical") dynamics of communication.Purpose of the StudyThis study investigates the restructuring ofprocedural knowledge in four Japanese undergraduatestudents over a four month period. The students were3members of an exchange program studying in Canada and hadnewly-begun their program of studies during the period ofdata collection.Specifically, this study attempts to analyze therestructuring of procedural knowledge in three areasrelated to second language acquisition: 1) performancefeatures as they relate to oral production; 2) learningstrategies in the acquisition of grammar, pronunciation,and reading, writing, listening and conversational skills;and 3) knowledge, potentially culturally-determined, ofsmall group dynamics as this relates to the secondlanguage learning process.Practical Significance of the StudyThe phenomenon of groups of Japanese studentsspending prolonged periods of time studying at Canadianuniversities and other educational institutions is arelatively new one. It is a trend very likely toaccelerate in the future, however. Of prime importance tocurriculum developers and instructors involved in thistype of program, then, is a well-developed understandingof the psycho- and sociolinguistic behaviour of Japaneselanguage learners. This is especially true in light ofapparent differences in the nature of second languageeducation in Japanese and Canadian institutions, and theeffects of culture and strategy use on Japanese learners'acquisition of English in a Canadian academic setting.4To summarize this chapter, the restructuring ofknowledge is seen as a complex cognitive process wherelinguistic knowledge is refined into target languagenorms. Procedural knowledge has been argued here to be akey element in restructuring. This type of knowledge maybe the means by which a learner develops strategicbehaviour. More fundamentally, cultural norms may be aform of procedural knowledge. Thus, in order to examinethe concept of restructuring thoroughly, it may not besufficient merely to analyze changes in linguistic outputover time. Rather, an overall picture of thephenomenology of language learning must also be created inorder to help explain how learners attempt to refine theirknowledge of both linguistic and sociolinguistic systems.Toward this goal, Chapter 2 will review theliterature related to the psycholinguistic processesinvolved in restructuring. The discussion will also dealwith culturally-determined patterns of communicationwhich, it will be argued, play a role in the restructuringprocess. Chapter 3 will list the research problems of thestudy and describe the methodology employed in the casestudies. In Chapter 4, findings related to longitudinalchanges in strategic behaviour will be presented, andtentative explanations for these changes will be offered.Chapter 5 will outline the limitations and implications ofthe research, and then present general conclusions5regarding the restructuring of procedural knowledgerelated to strategic behaviour and patterns ofcommunication.6CHAPTER 2:REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREThis chapter seeks to expand upon the areasintroduced in Chapter One. Thus, cognitive theory as itrelates to procedural knowledge and second languagelearning will be discussed, as will the relationshipbetween procedural knowledge and restructuring.An analysis of communication styles in Japaneseculture will also be undertaken. Especially important herewill be a discussion of the prominence of the group inJapanese culture and the impact this prominence has onJapanese learners of English. This cultural analysis willbe carried out for the specific purpose of attempting toelaborate up the relationship between culturally-groundedknowledge and the process of restructuring. Finally, atypology will be developed based on communication andlearning strategies.The Cognitive PerspectiveAnderson (1983) argues that procedural learning"occurs only in executing a skill" (p. 215). He callsprocedural learning sequences "productions", involving"data-action" pairs which, if present in memory, serve asa guide to action (pp. 5-6).Procedural knowledge is contrasted with declarativeknowledge, or cognitive units which are, according toAnderson, "such things as propositions (for example (hate,7Bill, Fred)), strings (one, two, three), or spatial images(a triangle above a square)" (p. 23). The distinctionbetween the two types of knowledge has been put in simplerterms by Ellis (1985), who refers to procedural knowledgeas "knowing how" and to declarative knowledge as "knowingthat" (p.166). The procedural-declarative knowledgedichotomy is seen by Anderson (1983) as a facet of a"unitary theory of cognition" (p. 1), in which individualcognitive processes, including language, arerepresentations of the same overall framework. Thus,within Anderson's theoretical structure, languageacquisition is but one embodiment of a set of principlesbasic to human cognition. Specifically, syntacticdevelopment of a child's first language "mirrors thestructure of procedural control" (p. 261).Cognitive Theory and Second Language AcquisitionMcLaughlin (1987) argues that the "internalrepresentations" central to language acquisition arelanguage-based (pp. 133-134). The procedural knowledgeinherent in language acquisition involves propositionsrelated to the lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic rules oflanguage use. These propositions are developed graduallythrough practice, as part of the overall cognitive process(Anderson, 1983, p. 267; McLaughlin, 1987, p. 134).The cognitive framework, then, provides onetheoretical underpinning for the study of learners'8strategies within the second language acquisition process,in that it links strategic behaviour with proceduralknowledge, and posits that "language and cognition [are]seen to be inextricably interrelated" in memory storage(O'Malley & Chamot, p. 55). This would seem to indicatethat strategic behaviour is linked to a process ofcognitive development that learners experience along withtheir linguistic knowledge. It thus raises an importantquestion related to the development of both linguistic andstrategic knowledge: do these intertwined branches ofknowledge grow together as a result of the same overallcognitive process, or does strategic (procedural)knowledge act as a metalinguistic regulator of linguistic(declarative) knowledge? The following section willattempt to deal with this question.Automaticity and RestructuringStudies (Clark & Clark, 1977; Wode, et al., 1978)have shown that children learning English as their firstlanguage initially acquired the correct past tense formsof irregular verbs (e.g., went, came), but then wentthrough a phase of reformulation of these irregular formsto products of the regular rule (e.g., "goed" or "wented","comed"). This phase, in turn, was replaced by the correctusage of both regular and irregular forms of the pasttense.The first stage of this process, the acquisition of9irregular past tense forms, provides an example ofautomaticity, described by McLaughlin (1990) as follows:The development of any complex cognitive skill isthought to require building up a set of well-learned,automatic procedures so that controlled processes arefreed for new learning. From a practical standpoint,the necessary component is overlearning. A skill mustbe practiced again and again and again, until noattention is required for its performance (p. 115).In an earlier theoretical framework of cognitivedevelopment, Rumelhart and Norman (1978) describeautomaticity somewhat differently, using the notions of"accretion" and "schema tuning" (p. 51). Schema are seenas "acting data processing units" (p. 44), and the learneris able to add ("accrete") knowledge within schema so longas it falls in close approximation with the existingorganizational framework ("default values") of the schema."Schema tuning" (p. 51) will also occur, where slightadjustments are made to the organizational framework toaccommodate slightly variant data.While seen as a necessary condition for languageacquisition, automaticity is not in itself a sufficientcondition (McLaughlin, 1990; Lightbown, 1985). This isbecause as learners detect new information or find newpatterns in the language, a cognitive restructuring ofthis information is necessary. Rumelhart and Norman (1978)see restructuring as the construction of new schema basedon the old framework, but do not speculate on the actual10cognitive processes involved. Howard (1985) has elaboratedupon the important concepts of top-down and bottom-upprocessing. Bottom-up processing deals with the learner's"picking up" of diverse pieces of lexical and syntacticknowledge, while top-down processing describes thecognitive operations necessary to the integration oflinguistic knowledge within meaningful frames of reference(pp. 291-292). Karmiloff-Smith (1986) argues for arestructuring process involving three phases. In theinitial, or "procedural phase" (p. 173), children attendto the external stimulus of hearing, for example, pasttense forms and proceed to incorporate them, in a data-driven, bottom-up manner, as unanalyzed chunks into theirspeech. In the second phase, the child "goes beyondsuccess", and "works on ...earlier (successful) proceduralrepresentations as problem spaces in their own right" (p.174), by employing a top-down analysis of existing data.(This process can be compared with "denativization"[Andersen, 1989], and "hypothesis formulation and testing"[Schachter, 1986]). The third phase, a "conceptual phase"(p. 174) involves a full restructuring where the externalstimuli of phase one and the internal processing of phasetwo are incorporated into a fully-developed ability to usethe past tense forms of the English language.In a similar though less structured description,Cheng (1985) argues that restructuring involves the11reintegration of the elements of a learning task into anew form possessing new components which are more accuraterepresentations of the task. Implicit in this description(and explicit in that of Karmiloff-Smith), is the idea ofthe learner striving for successful communication, andthen going "beyond success" (Karmiloff-Smith, 1986, p.174) to a complete mastery of the task.Restructuring, then, is seen as the means towardmastery (Lightbown, 1985), although most learners of asecond language never attain native-speaker fluency.McLaughlin (1990), reporting on research by Ard and Gass(1987), hypothesized that:development in a second language may involve theinteraction of lexical and syntactic processes, withrestructuring occurring as one or the other processpredominates (p. 122).It may be insufficient, however, to argue that thelearner functioning in a foreign culture restructureslinguistic knowledge only. Given the apparent relationshipbetween restructuring and procedural knowledge, andAnderson's (1983) assertion that procedural anddeclarative knowledge are a single element in a largercognitive framework, it would seem reasonable to inferthat a restructuring of culturally-based knowledge is alsoa fundamental part of the language learning experience.This would also hold true, of course, for culturally-bound12conceptions of the nature and goals of education and thelearning process as these relate to SLA.A tentative answer to the question posed above on thenature of the relationship between strategic andlinguistic knowledge (see p. 8) may now perhaps beattempted. Through strategic analysis, the learner appearsto initiate a process of discovery related to the internallogic of the rules--syntactic, lexical and, perhaps,pragmatic--of a specific language. When enough informationhas been obtained about this internal logic, a process ofrestructuring occurs. Strategic and linguistic knowledgethus appear to be different yet closely related, with theformer type of knowledge providing procedural pathways togain access to declarative knowledge inherent inlinguistic systems. If it is indeed the case, otherquestions must be asked. One such question would relateto the dynamic between strategies an restructuring. Forexample, are strategies of a more cognitively complexnature born of the restructuring process as in a feedbackloop, or do strategies remain constant through time?Another area of inquiry relates to consciousness, strategyformation, and second language acquisition. To whatextent, for example, are strategies conscious processes?Finally, in relation to SLA, what mi the actualcorrespondence be between what learners say the know ofthe second language and their operative cognitive13representations of linguistic forms and functions? Thesequestions will be examined below in subsequent sections ofthis review.Consciousness and Second Language AcquisitionAccording to McLaughlin (1990), cognitive theoryposits an "active, constructive, and planful" learner (p.113). While cognitive theory must account for thestrategies people use in learning, McLaughlin stressesthat this does not imply that learners are alwaysconsciously aware of the strategies they employ. Faerchand Kasper (1987) argue that declarative knowledge isusually found in conscious memory, while proceduralknowledge is automatically and unconsciously used unless abreakdown in communication forces conscious recourse toprocedural strategies.Schmidt (1990) examined several notions ofconsciousness with reference to second language learning.Specifically, three categories of consciousness wereexamined: 1) "noticing and subliminal perception" inconnection with the manner in which input becomes intake;2) "incidental learning", or the extent to which input isconsciously acted upon; and 3) "implicit learning", or therole of consciousness in hypothesis formulation (p. 138).Based on his own diary entries while learning Portuguese(Schmidt & Frota, 1986), Schmidt concluded that formsfrequently noticed by the learner may become part of his14or her production, but may not necessarily contribute tolearning or intake, depending on the degree to which theform is processed by the learner. Subliminal perceptions,argues Schmidt, do not play a role in second languageacquisition. This argument, however, appears to be open toquestion, in that subliminal perceptions could provide astimulus to schema tuning (Rumelhart & Norman, 1978), orto restructuring (Karmiloff-Smith, 1986; McLaughlin,1990). The various frameworks now available in theliterature do not appear to discount subliminal perceptionas a source of cognitive development.Like Faerch and Kasper (1983b), Schmidt (1990) seesincidental learning occurring to the greatest extent whenthe demands of the language task force the learnerconsciously to process the needed input into intake.The Questions of Interface and IntrospectionSeveral researchers and commentators have advancedpositions on the degree, if any, to which second languagelearners are able to "interface" a consciously-learnedknowledge of language rules with subconsciously-acquiredability (the emphasized words are Krashen's [1981, 1982]terminology). Krashen (1981, 1982) has advocated a non-interface model in his input hypothesis, where "learning"a rule does not effect linguistic performance because thelearner must subconsciously "acquire" knowledge at the15level most appropriate for personal advancement in thestage of acquisition that he or she is at.Sharwood Smith (1981), on the other hand, hasarticulated the most complete model of full interfacing.He calls the conscious representation of a well-definedbody of grammatical knowledge "explicit" knowledge."Implicit" knowledge, conversely, is the "feel" that alearner has for grammatical felicity (p. 159). SharwoodSmith has hypothesized that interface occurs when explicitand implicit knowledge merge as output. This output, alongwith the utterances of other speakers, forms input whichis channelled back to the learner in the form ofrefinements upon both explicit and implicit knowledge.Swain (1985) found that this "comprehensible output"formed an important basis for both the testing oflearners' hypotheses regarding linguistic forms and thenegotiation of meaning between speakers.Seliger (1979) posited a weak interface model wherelanguage rules are seen not as representations of thelearner's actual knowledge of the language, but aspotential catalysts in increasing learning speed andaccuracy. He has compared the language learner to theprofessional linguist, in that both attempt to formhypotheses regarding the structural components of alanguage based on observation and experimentation(Seliger, 1983). The comparison ends after this rather16superficial similarity, Seliger argues, because theconscious, metalinguistic explanations of languagelearners are not the same as their internal representationof the language. Seliger bases this view on his (1979)study of native and non-native speakers' knowledge of theusage rule for the English indefinite pronouns ("a" and"an") compared with their actual use of these forms.While agreeing that Seliger's distinction betweenconscious and subconscious representations of linguisticforms is an important one, Cohen (1987) argues thatresearch in this area has shown that learner's reportsabout how their own learning takes place can be used toreconstruct the learning phenomenon (Cohen & Robbins,1976), and that the degree to which conscious processesare involved in production needs to be re-examined (White,1980; Ericsson & Simon, 1980).In summary, the discussion of the interface betweenconscious and unconscious acquisition of language, and thelarger questions of the role of consciousness in attaininglinguistic and metalinguistic knowledge offers usefulinsights into the role played by the strategies oflanguage learners. At the very least, introspectivereports on these strategies are important in furtheringknowledge of what students are actually experiencing inclass, as opposed to what instructors and curriculumdevelopers feel students should be doing in class17(Hosenfeld, 1976).Restructuring and Culturally-based KnowledgeThe discussion to this point has focussed onrestructuring as it applies to the psycholinguisticprocesses of second language acquisition. However, anothersignificant concept has been alluded to above, and nowneeds to be discussed at greater length: the concept ofrestructuring as it may apply to changes insociolinguistic knowledge generated through exposure to aforeign culture (e.g., learning strategies appropriate tothe Canadian university setting). Because longitudinalstudies documenting change in sociolinguistic behaviouramong Japanese living in foreign cultures are largelyunavailable, studies examining various aspects ofeducation (ESL or otherwise) using Japanese subjects willbe dealt with here. It is hoped that such studies willpresent us with characteristics of the Japanese student ofEnglish which can be examined for change in the course ofthe present study.Reid (1987) assessed the learning style preferencesof several ethnic groups, including Japanese. Theselearning styles were divided into six categories:1) Visual learning: reading, studying charts2) Auditory learning: listening to lectures,audiotapes3) Kinesthetic learning: experiential learning, that18is, total physical involvement with a learningsituation4) Tactile learning: "hands on" learning, such asbuilding models or doing laboratory experiments5) Group learning6) Individual learning (p. 89)The group of Japanese learners in Reid's studyconsisted of 130 persons of varying ages, academicbackgrounds and time spent in the United States. Thefindings indicated that:For reasons yet unknown (although culture maycertainly play a role), Japanese speakers did not, asa group, identify a single major learning style...(p.96)Interestingly, group learning was the only category ratedby the Japanese as a negative learning style preference.Reid did not, however, monitor her subjects for changes inattitude toward learning orientations over time; nor wasthe structure of the group learning in any way elaboratedupon. This is significant because, while variouscommentators (Nakane, 1971; Shimahara, 1979) have notedthe great importance of group membership and harmoniousgroup relationships in Japanese society, this observationhas not led to any significant amount of research in groupdynamics among Japanese second language learners.The context in which learning takes place may also19serve to be a determining factor in the development oflearning styles. For example, in a longitudinal study ofcommunicative preferences and competence in an individualJapanese learner of English, Schmidt (1983; cited inLarsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 69), found no evidence ofthe gradual acquisition of creative language based on therepertoire of formulaic speech possessed by the subject ofhis case study. In fact, Schmidt noted that his subject,Wes, appeared to rely heavily on memorization as a meansof communication. Yet, as Schmidt notes, Wes was viewed asan excellent communicator of English in the naturalisticenvironment in which he used the language. Thus, withinthe context of Wes's learning environment, formulaicspeech and the learning strategies it generated appearedto be of greater importance than the acquisition of rulesfor creative speech (cf. Ellis, 1984 and Wong Fillmore,1979).In the area of intra-cultural communication, Gass andVaronis (1986) studied gender differences in negotiationfor meaning among adult Japanese second language learners.Same and mixed-gender dyads were given three tasks,consisting of a conversation task and twopicture-description tasks. The findings indicated that themembers of the mixed-dyads initiated more negotiation thantheir counterparts in the same-sex dyads. Gass and Varonisconcluded:20What we have seen in this study is a situation ofunequal partnerships. Men took greater advantage ofthe opportunities to use the conversation in a waythat allowed them to produce a greater amount of"comprehensible output", whereas women utilized theconversation to obtain a greater amount ofcomprehensible input (p. 349).The authors also speculated that "the overalldominance of men in the conversation may be influenced bycultural norms" (p. 349). As was the case with Reid'sstudy, a measure of longitudinal changes in these patternsthat might be indicative of the effects of restructuringwas not a part of the research design. Also, because thestudy dealt with dyadic behaviour, the role of largergroup dynamics was not studied.In the Gass and Varonis study, leadership roles indirecting learning processes appeared to be apredominantly male prerogative. In a study attempting toisolate other qualities of leadership in learningsituations, Dearing and Rogers (1990) studied groupdynamics among the scientists who had formed study groupsin Japan's Tsukuba Science City. While this study isobviously not directly related to group work amongJapanese second language learners, it does offer insightsinto the nature of the Japanese study group.Dearing and Rogers note that the concept of theinformal study group was in itself revolutionary when21these groups were first formed at Tsukuba. We might inferfrom this that group work generally is not a commonprocess within the Japanese educational system.Case studies of some of the study groups revealed theimportance of group leaders:Leaders were important in the establishment andoperation of the study groups we analyzed. Each groupwas formed and guided by a strong-willed, energeticresearcher; several of these were known as excellentresearchers by their peers (p. 221).Dearing and Rogers maintain that the members of thesegroups reaped the benefits of meeting other researcherswith whom they shared common professional and/or socialinterests.Implications of this study for group work in thesecond language classroom must, of course, be stated withcaution, owing to differences between scientific studygroups and group work in the second language class.However, it is possible to isolate components of the studygroup which may be applicable to Japanese learners ofEnglish. First, the selection of group leaders on thebasis of perceived excellence in the field of study may bea general characteristic of group formation. Second, inthe second language classroom, we might expect groupmembers sharing common social and, perhaps, professionalcharacteristics to form strong communicative bonds. Whilevery positive in itself, this could, in the context of a22foreign learning environment, have the less desirableeffect described by Bishop's similarity-attraction theory(cited in Scarcella, 1990, pp. 342-343), where non-nativespeakers sharing similar "interaction norms" tend to staytogether in groups largely exclusive of those having otherkinds of interactive behaviour. That this is the case incultural interactions among Japanese seems to be supportedby commentators such as Yoneyama (cited in Midooka, 1990)and Midooka (1990), who note that the "degree of intimacy"(Midooka, 1990, p. 482) between speakers determines thestyle of communication followed. This characteristic is,of course, true of communicative interaction in manysocieties; anthropological studies would seem to indicate,however, that for Japanese, both inter- and intra-grouppatterns of communication are complex and well-defined(Midooka, 1990).Midooka argues that within the Japanese group itself,the hierarchical arrangement of members is of fundamentalimportance. This is elaborated upon by Nakane (1970):The vertical relation which we predicted in theoryfrom the ideals of social group formation in Japanbecomes the actuating principle in creating cohesionamong group members. Because of the overwhelmingascendance of this vertical orientation, even a setof individuals sharing identical qualifications tendsto create a difference among these individuals (p.25).According to Midooka (1990), factors involved in23determining a person's hierarchical rank include age,position, experience, and wisdom and knowledge (p. 483).As has been noted above, Dearing and Rogers (1990) foundthat group leaders in scientific study groups seemed to berecognized as "excellent researchers", a categorizationdetermined at least partially in Midooka's above criteria.In summary, a number of characteristics related toJapanese culture and norms of communication have beendiscussed here. The information gleaned from the studiesdiscussed above should prove helpful in assessing Japanesesubjects' developing styles of communication when livingin a foreign culture. Such an assessment might also, then,serve to indicate the degree to which culturally-heldprocedural knowledge is restructured. In the secondlanguage classroom, we might expect such restructuring totake place in two vital areas: 1) changes in the nature ofgroup dynamics and 2) changes in the types of strategiesemployed by students in the classroom.Types of Strategic BehaviourThe purpose of the discussion to this point has beento elucidate the concepts of procedural knowledge andrestructuring as they apply to second language acquisitionand, to a lesser degree, to culturally-based norms ofcommunicative interaction. Having done this, it isnecessary to discuss basic types of strategic behaviour in24the hope that this knowledge will guide the development ofa typology of second language learners' strategies.The first factor that must be considered in theselection of any typology of learning strategies is thecurrent disarray in this area of research. Severalresearchers and writers have commented on the lack ofstandardization of terms and typologies in researchregarding second language learners' strategies (Tarone,1980; Raupach, 1983; Tarone, Cohen & Dumas, 1983; Ellis,1985; Willing, 1987; Chaudron, 1988; and Skehan, 1989).Willing (1987) argues for the need to relate secondlanguage learning strategies to second languageacquisition generally. Tarone (1980), however, cautionsthat diligence must be exercised in examining differencesamong bodies of research in terms of both the conceptualframework used and the phenomena observed, so far as theseinfluence the classification of strategies. In addition,Corder (1983) notes the confusion regarding theclassification of "learning strategies" and "communicationstrategies", and speculates that the difficulty may residein the fact that different interpretations can be placedon the same baseline data, i.e., the interlanguage of thespeaker (p. 16).Secondly, the relationship between strategicbehaviour and procedural knowledge must be considered.Faerch and Kasper (1983a) have applied the25"learning-acquisition" distinction to interlanguagetheory. "Learning" is defined as "the processes wherebythe learner discovers the rules ... of L2 and graduallycomes to master them, thereby developing a continuum of ILsystems" (p. xvii). "Communicating" is seen as "the waysthe learner uses his IL system in interaction" (p. xvii).Declarative knowledge is seen as the "substance" oflearning, while procedural knowledge is thought to mediatebetween declarative knowledge and linguistic production(Faerch & Kasper, 1987). Thus, procedural knowledge, inthis conceptual framework at least, guides the learner inknowing when and how to apply specific strategies; it alsois the means by which automatization occurs (Faerch &Kasper, 1983b).McLaughlin (1987) extends Faerch and Kasper's conceptof procedural knowledge to account for the restructuringof knowledge, although O'Malley and Chamot (1990) appearto argue that such an extension was not made by Faerch andKasper themselves, who remain within a bottom-up,structural analysis, as opposed to a top-down, cognitiveapproach. It is possible, however, to find in Faerch andKasper's analysis a combination of two theoreticalperspectives: their analysis of a speaker's interlanguageprovides a "picture" or "statement" of the declarative(bottom-up) knowledge of the speaker, while the samespeaker's procedural (top-down) knowledge may be traced,26at least partially, through an examination of his or herstrategies for language use. The ultimate goal of thislatter examination would be to provide us with adescription of the cognitive processes involved inlearning a second language.A third factor in selecting strategies for a typologythat is responsive to learners' introspective reports onstrategic behaviour in the classroom is that of learnerconsciousness of the use of strategies. Faerch and Kasper(1983b) define communication strategies using the primarycriterion of "problem-orientedness" and the secondarycriterion of "consciousness" (p. 31). Their primarycriterion appears to be generally accepted by otherwriters as important (Tarone, 1981; Ellis, 1985); that is,a. learner will not employ a communication strategy unlessa problem in communication first exists. The secondcriterion, consciousness, is much more problematic. AsTarone (1981) argues, it is difficult to classify thedegree of consciousness inherent in a strategy.Recognizing this problem, Faerch and Kasper (1983b) definecommunication strategies in such a way as to allow forvarying degrees of consciousness:Communication strategies are potentially consciousplans for solving what to an individual presentsitself as a problem in reaching a certain goal (p.36).We might therefore expect variation among individuals27regarding consciousness of communication strategies, inthat some learners may have automatized strategies whichonce operated on a conscious level or, depending on thesituation, a normally unconscious strategy may becomeconsciously accessible (Faerch & Kasper, 1983b).The issue of consciousness is important in guidingresearch as to what type of introspective reportsexperimental subjects might realistically be expected togive. Cumming (1990), for example, found that in the caseof French Ll speakers introspectively commenting on theirEnglish writing processes, consciousness did not appear tobe a factor in gaining access to Ll forms, but that it wasa factor in making comparisons between L1 and L2 forms(See Schmidt (1981), however, for another view, where alearner was not able to establish an effective interfacebetween Ll and L2.).In addition, research has indicated that learner-initiated modification of IL forms is at least potentiallyavailable to NNS working together in problem-solving orconversational groups (Morrison & Low, 1983; Porter, 1986;Gass & Varonis, 1985; Rulon & McCreary, 1986; Berwick, 198In keeping with Faerch and Kasper's definition ofcommunication strategies, we might well expect that amultiplicity of communicative problems arises in the typesexchanges documented by the research. We might equallyexpect, then, that learners would be conscious of the28strategies they employ to negotiate meaning in theseexchanges, and that these strategies would therefore beopen to introspective examination. As Tarone (1981)suggests, however, it would be extremely difficult toquantify the degree of consciousness involved in thelearner's modification of his or her interlanguage.Thus, introspective reports of communicationstrategies might well be incomplete or inaccurate. Theredoes, however, appear to be one key area of strategicbehaviour as it applies to communication strategies ininterlanguage development that is relatively accessible tothe researcher to study without having to rely onsubjects' introspective reports. This is the area ofperformance features. According to Seliger (cited inFaerch & Kasper, 1983c, pp. 213-214), performance featuresare elements of oral communication which are indicative ofplanning for or executing strategic behaviour. Highlyautomatized in nature, they can perhaps be seen as thesmallest observable elements of procedural knowledgeembedded within the interlanguage of the learner. Theseelements include features such as self-repairs, pauses,and repeats.That the analysis of performance features mightprovide important clues as to the basic productionorientation of the learner is a concept discussed byFaerch and Kasper (1983c). After noting the need for more29research on the use of performance features among secondlanguage learners, Faerch and Kasper draw on Seliger's(1980) categorization of language learners as either"planners" or "correctors". In this model, "learners whocarefully plan their utterances before they start talking"(i.e., planners) use a lot of filled and unfilled pauses,while "learners who start on the execution of theirutterances before they have established a complete plan"(i.e., correctors) make extensive use of repeats andself-repair (Faerch & Kasper, 1983, p. 223). An analysisof these performance features, then, might provide theresearcher with two basic orientations (i.e., planning andcorrective behaviour) of subjects to oral production.Learning Strategies O'Malley et al. (1985a) conducted research into thelearning strategies employed by second language learners.While Faerch and Kasper (1983b) define communicativestrategies largely in terms of changes in interlanguagestructures brought about through necessity and consciousplanning, O'Malley et al. examine learning strategies interms of the cognitive processes that occur with the useof certain strategies. The theoretical foundations oftheir work appear to rest on generative processing(Witrock, Marks & Doctorow, 1975), which characterizeslearning as a complex, interactive process between contentand memory. In addition, O'Malley et al. cite Brown's30(1982) findings that learning strategies are not effectiveunless metacognitive processes are combined with cognitiveprocesses to provide focus and direction to learning.O'Malley et al. (1985a) found that cognitivestrategies constituted by far the largest percentages ofstrategies employed by the two groups of subjects(beginning and intermediate levels) that they observed. Ofthe cognitive strategies, observed, most fell intocategories such as "cooperation" "question forclarification", "note-taking", and "repetition" (p. 39).O'Malley et al.'s primary interest appears to lie indefining broader cognitive and metacognitive categories ofstrategic intent. This is in contrast to Faerch andKasper (1983b), who attempt to give a typology ofcommunicative strategies induced largely from structuresavailable in learners' interlanguage.In summary, it must be noted that there is nodefinitive typology of the strategies used by learners ofsecond languages, and that researchers have not reached aconsensus on the theoretical underpinnings best suited toapproach this area of study. Of definite importance,however, are approaches based on the study ofinterlanguage theory, as exemplified by Faerch and Kasper(1983b), and cognitive theory, as applied by O'Malley etal. (1985a). The researcher developing a typology withinthese frameworks would need to consider carefully the31methodology for data collection, because subjects'instrospective reports might well prove unreliable inyielding accurate data on communication strategies, whilelearning strategies would appear to be more accuratelyidentified through subject introspection than throughresearcher observation.A Typology of Second Language Learners' Strategies The following typology is synthesized from the abovediscussion. While it is far from exhaustive, it doesprovide insight into common communicative and cognitivestrategies employed by second language learners. Thestrategies in the typology have been selected and, in somecases, modified, in an attempt to avoid overlappingdefinitions of types of strategic behaviour. As aninductive typology, it attempts to draw a number ofstreams of thinking about strategic behaviour into asingle outline, but may not adequately reflect aparticular learning context, such as the one identified inthis study.It is expected that this typology would be revisedto fit the data collected in the research project. Twobasic areas of strategic behaviour have been chosen forrepresentation--performance features and communicationstrategies. The former area is important in providingcharacterizations of the subjects in accordance withSeliger's notion of learners as being oriented towards32planning or corrective behaviours. The second area,communication strategies, is divided into functionalreduction and achievement strategies. The former categoryisI. PERFORMANCE FEATURES (Faerch & Kasper, 1983c)A. Self repair (Faerch & Kasper, 1983c)A.1 False startsA.2 New startsB. Repeats (Faerch & Kasper, 1983c)C. Hesitation pauses (Faerch & Kasper, 1983c)C.l Filled pausesC.2 Unfilled pausesII. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES (Faerch & Kasper,1983b)A. Functional reduction strategies (Ellis, 1985)A.1 Topic avoidance (Tarone, Cohen, & Dumas,1983)B. Achievement strategies (Ellis, 1985)B.1 Subject repeats all or part ofinterlocutor's words, in order to clarifymeaning (Abraham & Vann, 1987).B.2 Question for clarification (O'Malley &Chamot,1990)B.3 Appeal to authority (Faerch & Kasper,1983b)B.4 Comprehension check (Berwick, 1988;Gumperz, 1990)B.5 Restructuring (Faerch & Kasper, 1983b)B.6 Translation (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990)Figure 1. A typology of strategies related to learning asecond language.primarily concerned with avoidance strategies, while thelatter pertains to strategies used by speakers who wish toremain with the conversational topic, but who lack the33lexical or syntactic means to do so (Ellis, 1985). Thesecategories of behaviour have been chosen here in the hopethat they will reflect the subjects in passive and activemodes of strategic behaviour, as indicated by their use ofreduction and achievement strategies respectively. It ishoped that the specific strategies chosen are amenable toobservation and, to some extent at least, the consciousrecollection of the subjects.SummaryThe study of the development and use of strategies isa complex field, relying on different theoreticalframeworks and producing typologies that vary greatly,both qualitatively and quantitatively, in their attemptsto define and delimit components of learners' strategies.It would appear that strategic knowledge is a kind ofprocedural knowledge which interacts with declarativeknowledge to produce context-appropriate linguistic forms.Cultural patterns of communicative behaviour appearto play an important role in defining the actualphenomenology of learning as it relates to the aspirationsof learners. Initially at least, learners studying in aforeign environment will be bound to some extent by theseculturally-conditioned patterns. It is also quite likelythat learners employ culturally-determined patterns forthe selection and use of strategies in new learningenvironments, but it would seem almost inevitable that34cultural norms of the foreign learning environment willgradually begin to influence this process over time.These culturally-determined patterns, in conjunction withspecific characteristics related to the ages and goals ofthe group members themselves would serve to define thetype of language socialization process that takes place(i.e., formal or informal, academic or general,instrumental or integrative acquisition of the targetlanguage). The socialization process would likelydetermine appropriate types of strategic behaviour througha gradual process of matching strategy use with favouredoutcomes. Finally, restructuring would come about as thelearner experimented with the various aspects of thisequation in an attempt to develop equilibrium within thelanguage environment. Figure 2 serves to illustrate thefactors that may be involved in the overallrestructuring process. This figure deals with differingkinds of procedural knowledge related to thesociolinguistic acquisition of a second language, andrelates to the research problems listed in Chapter 3,which attempt to document changes over time in these typesof procedural knowledge that might be attributed torestructuring. Chapter 3 will also provide a detaileddescription of the research site as well as an explanationregarding the selection of the cases.35> 	 > Linguistic InputIvLearner's cultural 	 group 	 Canadianbackground 	 <----> norms < 	 > culturaldynamics17SOCIALIZATIONVSTRATEGIC BEHAVIOURVRESTRUCTURINGVOUTPUTFigure 2. A model of the factors involved inrestructuring.36CHAPTER 3:METHODOLOGYIn order to gain insight into the assumptions that weredeveloped in the preceding chapter about the nature ofrestructuring, a longitudinal case study involving two pairsof learners was developed. Politzer and McGroarty (1985)maintain that in any study of longitudinal changes instrategic behaviour, variables such as age, sex, culturalbackground and previous experience with the target languageshould be controlled. In addition to demonstrating how thesefactors were controlled for, this chapter will outline theresearch problems of the study and describe the researchsite.Research ProblemsThe following research problems relate to the purposesof the study (pp. 3-4 above); they have been refined andenlarged upon, however, in order to reflect questions thatdeveloped from the process of interaction with the data.1) Is quantitative change in performance feature useobservable in NS-NNS interactions (interviews) and NNS-NNSinteractions (in class group sessions)? [related to question1, p. 4]2) What introspective knowledge do the subjects possessregarding their use of performance features? [related toquestion 1, p. 4]3) To what extent is cultural background responsible for37the dynamics of communication observed in the group sessions?[related to question 3, p. 4]4) What are the introspective reports of the members ofeach case regarding the use of learning strategies, and arethere differences over time in the nature of these reports?[related to question 2, p. 4]5) Are the types of behaviours and behavioural changeobserved in questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 related to the process ofrestructuring? [related to questions 1, 2 and 3, p. 4]The Research DesignPurposeful Sampling Strategies Case study analyses were carried out on two pairs ofsubjects involved in the UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic ExchangeProgram. Case A had achieved "advanced" (2, 2+) ratings onthe Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), while the subjectsin Case B were rated at a "novice" (0+) level (seeAppendix A for a description of the OPI). Informationrelated to the cases is summarized in Table 1.The OPI was used as the instrument of assessmentbecause it provides a valid measure of conversationalability, which is of fundamental importance in the task-oriented group work that formed the basis of classroomobservation.The OPI was administered to the subjects in May,1991, before they left Japan. The interview team, composedof University of British Columbia (UBC) staff as well as38local native speaking English teachers, had been trainedin conducting the OPI prior to the May administration. ItTable 1Composition of the Cases Case 	 Subject (Sex) 	 OPI RatingA (advanced) 	 Atsuko (F) 	 2Kenji (M)	2+B (novice) 	 Midori (F) 	 0+Ryuzo (M) 	 0+was not possible to test for inter-rater reliabilityregarding the evaluations given each of the four subjectsduring this administration. However, three of the foursubjects--Atsuko, Midori, and Ryuzo--were evaluated by thesame interviewer, a fact which would suggest a fairly highstandard of consistency in evaluation.The four subjects were selected from among ninestudents who had initially volunteered to participate inthe project. The final selection of subjects was made onthe basis of OPI ratings and gender, so that the advancedand novice cases contained both sexes.Data Collection Strategies Initially, the four subjects were interviewedregarding their educational backgrounds, knowledge oflanguage learning strategies, and objectives in learning39English. The interview used was an adaptation of thequestionnaire employed by Abraham and Vann (1987) (seeAppendix B). The subjects then underwent a series of fourvideo-taped classroom observation sessions followed bysemi-structured interviews. In the final interview, thesubjects were asked to re-answer questions about the useof strategies that had been asked in the initialquestionnaire. The data gathering process began inOctober, 1991, and continued until January, 1992, althoughno fieldwork was carried out in December.Classroom observation was carried out in the form ofvideo-taped sessions where one or more of the subjects wasinvolved in small group language learning activities. Twosections of a course entitled Intercultural Communicationin Second Language Learning, or English Education 379(ENED 379) (see Appendix C), were chosen, as this courseoffered frequent opportunities to video-record studentsworking cooperatively in pairs or small groups on a widevariety of communicative tasks.Participants retrospectively viewed these sessionswith the researcher, generally in the late afternoon ofthe same day as the video-tapes had been made. During thecourse of these interviews, the subjects were asked toexplain their reactions to the content and purpose of thevideo-taped activity. They were also asked aboutstrategies for effective communication. A Japanese-English40interpreter was present during the interviews of the twoCase B subjects, but this was deemed unnecessary for theCase A subjects after the first interview.It would be appropriate to comment here on thereliability of the interpretations. The four subjectswanted to answer the interviewer's questions in English asoften as possible, so that a total of only 12 translationsof their responses are found in the data. The procedurethat emerged during the interviews was that if a subjectdid not understand a question, he or she would ask for itto be translated into Japanese. Having heard the questionin Japanese, the subject would usually answer in English,asking for the interpreter's help only if it became verydifficult to communicate meaning fully.Reliability was checked in two ways. First, in thecase of the interpreter translating the question and thesubject responding in English, the researcher was able tojudge immediately if the subject's answer logicallycorresponded to the question asked. In 100% of the casesof this type of interpretation, answers corresponded withquestions, leading to the conclusion that interpretationwas highly reliable.Second, in order to assess the reliability of theinterpreter's translations of subject responses, a secondinterpreter was called upon. Five of the possible twelvesubject responses, or approximately 40% of the pertinent41data, were randomly selected and re-recorded on a separatecassette tape. The second interpreter was then asked totranslate these five responses. The researcher judged thatthe meaning as translated by the second interpreter wasvirtually identical to that given in the originalinterpretation in four of the five samples, for an inter-rater reliability of 80%. In the fifth sample, the secondinterpreter reported that she had had difficulty hearingthe recorded voices properly, and thus could notunderstand the conversation. The reliability of theinterpretations would thus appear to be very high, both inthe subjects' responses given in Japanese and in theexplanations of the researcher's questions translated intoJapanese.InstrumentationData were collected in the form of observationrecords (video-tapes and written transcripts), interviewrecords (cassette tapes and written transcripts) and fieldnotes. Written transcripts were coded for the use ofperformance features on the part of the four subjects.Coding was replicated on approximately 25% of the recordedtranscripts by a graduate student who had been trained inthe use of the coding system. Initially, two pages fromthe sample were coded independently by the researcher andthe graduate student. This coding was then compared anddifferences were discussed. After complete agreement had42been reached on each item coded in these initial pages,the student-assistant continued to code the rest of thesample, while the researcher reviewed the coding alreadyapplied to the entire corpus of data. Inspection of thesample determined that an inter-rater reliability of 86%had been achieved.One of the subjects was unavailable for the secondobservation/interview; it was therefore decided, in viewof the short time lapse between observations 1 and 3, notto report on the coding of the transcripts forobservation/interview 2. However, any retrospectiveanalyses on language learning strategies provided by thethree subjects present for this observation/interview weretaken into account for their value in revealing strategicdevelopment and sociolinguistic adaptation.Two important issues related to instrumentation--thedevelopment of a typology of strategies and the use ofvideo-taped data in classroom research--will be discussedbelow. The former issue will contain a definition ofterms.Development of a Typology of Strategies Initially, the coding of transcripts was performedusing a typology of 12 performance features and strategies(see p. 31). In that typology, which was synthesized fromthe literature, strategic behaviour was divided into twomajor types: communication strategies and performance43features. After a preliminary coding of the data usingthis typology, however, it was found to be ineffective asa tool of analysis and an inefficient basis for applyingconceptual thinking in SLA to the task of data analysis.In addition, the ambiguity of certain codes becameproblematic (e.g., restructuring and self repair), whileother items rarely appeared in the data (e.g.,translation).In order to deal with these difficulties, it wasdecided that communication strategies be omitted from theworking typology, and that the coding of performancefeatures (including comprehension checks) would be thefirst priority. Performance features were salient in thedata and supported straightforward coding. They could alsobe applied directly to a conceptual underpinning in theform of Seliger's (1980) suggestion that basicorientations to learning (i.e., "planning" and"correcting") might be observed through the subject'susage of performance features. This data can also becompared with the introspective comments of the subjectsrelated to learning styles, an option not readilyavailable through an analysis of communication strategies,which are often inaccessible to conscious processing(Faerch & Kasper, 1987). The working typology is outlinedin Figure 3.The study is also concerned with achievement44strategies in broad areas of classroom performance such asPERFORMANCE FEATURES (Faerch & Kasper, 1983c)A. Self repair (Faerch & Kasper, 1983c)A.1 False startsA.2 New startsB. Repeats (Faerch and Kasper, 1983c)C. Hesitation pauses (Faerch and Kasper, 1983c)C.l Filled pausesC.2 Unfilled pausesD. Comprehension check (Berwick, 1988; Gumperz,1990)Figure 3. Working Typology.listening, reading, writing, conversation, andpronunciation. However, rather than working deductivelyfrom a typology of cognitive strategies in these areas, itwas decided to rely on the introspective reports of thesubjects as to the specific strategies that they employed.These reports were then applied to an analysis oflongitudinal change within learning strategies. Thisdecision was taken because of the fact that observationalone is at best an incomplete and unreliable methodologyin determining learning strategies actually used by thesubjects (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). The subjects'introspective reports, however, tended to elucidate uponareas of strategic development in conjunction with agrowing consciousness of the demands placed upon them bythe learning environment in the areas of reading, writing,45listening, conversation, and pronunciation. This wouldappear to be in accordance with Witrock, Marks andDoctorow's (1975) notion of generative processing, whichrelates content to memory in cognitive processes, and withBrown's (1982) findings that metacognition serves toprovide focus to learning experiences.Definition of Terms The following list provides definition for theterminology used in the final typology.Performance features: aspects of oral communicationindicative of planning for or executing strategicbehaviour (Faerch & Kasper, 1983c).Performance features included in the typology are:-Hesitation pauses:-Filled pauses: "pauses which involve some non-lexical vocal cord activity like er, um, ah, orgambits like turn-internally used starters (well)or cajolers ( I mean, you know)" (Faerch &Kasper, 1983c, p. 215).-Unfilled pauses: "silent pauses" (Faerch &Kasper, 1983c, p. 215).-Repeats: "...repetitions which can stretch from asingle phoneme up to several words" (Faerch &Kasper, 1983c, p. 215).-Self repair: "A self-initiated, self-completed46repair" of a feature of oral production Faerch &Kasper, 1983c, pp. 215-217). Self repair falls intotwo basic types:-False starts: "a self repair...placed immediatelynext to the item to be repaired (the troublesource)" (Faerch & Kasper, 1983c, p. 216).-New starts: the self-repair is "placed at a laterpoint in the same speaker's turn, normally at aplausible completion point" (Faerch & Kasper,1983c, p. 216).-Comprehension check: a rising intonation after akey lexical item or prepositional phrase, indicatingthat the speaker is attempting to verify the clarityof the utterance (Berwick, 1988; Gumperz, 1990).The Use of Video-taped DataThe use of the video-tape as a research tool has beenwell documented in the field of SLA research (Rubin, 1975;Mehan, 1977; Saville-Troike, 1984; Wong-Fillmore, 1985).It is seen as a tool allowing for an "external memory" ofa research event (Mehan, 1977), since it can be viewedrepeatedly. Participants can be encouraged to view video-taped data and provide feedback on their performance orverify the interpretations of the researcher (Watson-Gegeo, 1988). Controversy does exist, however, regardingthe ethical problems inherent in the use of video-tapeddata, particularly when participants are "textualized",47and thus disempowered as autonomous individuals capable ofcareful reflection and change (Tobin & Davidson, 1990).These ethical considerations were kept in mind duringthe periods of data gathering and analysis, in respectboth to the integrity of the four subjects and in theawareness that the data collected were far from presentinga complete picture of the phenomenology of learning amongthese subjects.Selection of SiteIn September, 1991, The University of BritishColumbia and Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan, jointlylaunched a program of instruction on the UBC campus.During the first year of the program participants included100 second and third year Japanese undergraduate students(50 male and 50 female) from Ritsumeikan University. Thesestudents were divided into five classes of twenty studentseach, and studied at UBC for an eight-month period, fromSeptember to April, 1991-92.The students came from various academic backgrounds.The largest groupings included students from the fields ofInternational Relations (37), Social Sciences (19),Business Administration/Economics (16), and Letters (17).The latter group included students majoring in English.At the time of entry into the program, TOEFL scores amongthese students ranged from 480 to 583, with the majorityof students scoring in the 500-540 range, indicating48learners of upper intermediate ability.The program designers--from both the Canadian andJapanese sides--prioritized a program of instructionemphasizing academic discourse and interculturalcommunication. In the first term (September-December,1991), all of the students studied a program of Englishfor Academic Purposes (EAP) designed to prepare them forregular undergraduate course work. These courses wereentitled Intercultural Communication in Second LanguageEducation (English Education 379, or ENED 379), SecondLanguage Education Practicum (Education 395, or EDUC 395),and Academic Discourse in Second Language Education(Education 490, or EDUC 490).Students whose TOEFL scores fell in the 550-579 rangehad the opportunity, in the second term of the program(January-April, 1992), to audit two courses offered in theFaculty of Arts, including Understanding Culture andSociety (Anthropology 100) and Asian InternationalRelations (Political Science 365). Students scoring 580+on the TOEFL were allowed admission into any undergraduatecourse offered at UBC, in addition to the two Artscourses. Of the one hundred Ritsumeikan students inattendance, only five had gained access to this privilegedstatus by the start of the second term. After fourattempts at raising their TOEFL scores to sufficientlyhigh levels during the first term, 68 of the students were49still below the 550 level, and thus repeated the EAPcourses listed above (with EDUC 395 being optional).Anthropology 100 and Political Science 360 "parallelcourses", which were team taught by visiting professorsfrom Ritsumeikan University and Canadian lecturers, werealso provided for these students in the second term.Those students auditing regular UBC courses were alsorequired to enroll in the two EAP courses taken by thegroup whose TOEFL scores were below 550; they were alsoenrolled in the parallel courses.In addition to regular course work. students wereable to attend optional language laboratory sessions,where they could use various cassette and video tapes asstudy aids. An optional "Individual Study Program" (ISP)was also offered once a week for ninety minutes. In theseISP sessions, students were able to choose from amongvarious types of activities, including conversation andpronunciation workshops, a class offering instruction inidioms, a writing workshop, computer skills training and,in the second term, a "movie of the month" discussiongroup.The Classes Atsuko and Kenji, the advanced speakers, were membersof the "Alpha" section of the English Education 379 classwhich began in September, 1991, while Midori and Ryuzo,the novice speakers, were members of the "Beta" section of50this course. A brief explanation of the course formatwould be in order here. Every Monday morning, a guestspeaker delivered a lecture to the entire Ritsumeikanstudent body on a topic appropriate to ENED 379 coursecontent. Such lectures included topics in languagelearning, native land claims in Canada, and Canadianholidays. During the Tuesday through Thursday classsessions, instructors and students would analyze andamplify the lecture topic delivered in the plenarylecture. In both Alpha and Beta classes, pair and smallgroup work was the preferred means of exploring theselecture topics. These group sessions ranged from taskssuch as answering comprehension questions based on theguest lecturer's talk to preparing and delivering topic-specific debates or conversations. The instructors ofAlpha and Beta classes demonstrated a remarkable degree ofuniformity in class organization. Classes in which video-taped observations were carried out generally began with abrief, instructor-led introduction and explanation of thetask being assigned, followed by a short question period.Students would then break up into pairs or groups, usuallyfor about thirty minutes, while the instructor offeredassistance and answered questions. Finally, the entireclass would meet again, in order to discuss the outcomesof the task assigned or, in the case of longer tasks suchas debates, to report on progress made. Thus, while the51material for group work was not identical in Alpha andBeta classes, the thematic issues, as well as the approachto learning, were similar.A descriptive analysis of the two classrooms is givenin Table 2.Table 2Descriptive Analysis of Alpha and Beta Classes Class 	 N 	 OPI 	 TOEFLAlphaBeta	F: n=12	 2 	 n=9 	 X= 	 528.90	M: n= 8 	 2+ n=7	 s=	 28.51	N=20 	 3 n=4 	 range=96	F: n= 8 	 0+ n= 7	 X= 	 507.55	M: n=12	 1 	 n=13 	 s= 	 17.98	N=20 	 range=60The final classroom observation took place in follow-up course, Education 316: Communication Skills inEducational Settings. Classes did not contain the samepopulations of students, and all students had differentinstructors. However, during the one classroomobservation that occurred under these new circumstances,it was noted that the instructors were following the samebasic teaching format as they had previously employed.Also, the four subjects were, for this one observation atleast, all working with students who had been in theirrespective ENED 379 classes the previous term. Thus, no52new or intervening variables were observed that made thisfinal observation qualitatively different from the earlierobservations.SummaryIn this study, four subjects comprising two, two-person cases were observed in order to analyze the typesof strategies they used in task-oriented group sessions aswell as in conversation with a native speaker of English.In addition, these students were interviewed in order togain further understanding of their metacognitiveknowledge of the processes involved in learning a secondlanguage. The subjects were selected on the basis ofgender and conversational ability as rated by the OPI.The assumption has been made that these four learnersare representative of the "typical" UBC-Ritsumeikanexchange student. Although this assumption must be statedcautiously, it does appear valid because of the similarages and cultural and educational backgrounds of thesubjects.As will be seen in Chapter 4, the educationalbackgrounds of the subjects appear to be remarkablysimilar, a fact which further supports the argument thatresults obtained from the study of these four subjects aregeneralizable to the immediate population of UBC-Ritsumeikan exchange students. Chapter 4 will also presentfindings related to the five research problems stated53above.54CHAPTER 4:RESULTSIn this chapter, an initial examination ofsimilarities in the four subjects will be followed by ananalysis of the two cases. The findings from each casewill then be presented and analyzed with specificreference to the research questions posed in Chapter 3. Abasic goal of this chapter, then, is to examinelongitudinal change in strategic behaviour, while takingcultural and gender-related factors into account. A secondgoal is to comment, cautiously, on the role ofrestructuring in longitudinal changes in strategicbehaviour.Homogeneity of ExperienceDuring the initial interview, questions adapted fromAbraham and Vann's (1987) questionnaire revealed greatuniformity in the language learning experiences of thefour subjects prior to their arrival in Canada. Beforeanalyzing the individual cases in detail, it would beuseful to examine this homogeneity of experience.Each of the four subjects grew up in Japan, withinuniformly monolingual home and school environments. Nonehad travelled outside of Japan before engaging in theirstudies in Canada. Each began studying English formally injunior high school, and continued studying English andanother foreign language (L3)--German, Mandarin, or55French--throughout their high school and universityeducations. The Japanese education system, being highlyproduct oriented (Shimahara, 1979), would appear to de-emphasize the process of language learning embedded incommunicative task activities in favour of activities suchas grammar study, reading and translation exercises(Duppenthaler, Viswat & Onaka, 1989). Each subjectreported that the latter types of exercise constituted thebasic activities of classroom work and assignments forhomework. Textbooks used included class readers, as wellas the audio-lingually oriented New Horizons series.English teachers reportedly spoke little English, asidefrom reading and grammar exercises, in the junior andsenior high school classrooms, but slightly more at theuniversity level. Group work and communicativeconversational exercises were rarely, if ever used in theEnglish language classroom. There were native speakingEnglish teachers in high school and university, althoughcontact with them was minimal, ranging from two or threeperiods per year in high school, to two hours per week forone university term.Attendance and attention in class, at the universitylevel, at least, did not appear to be of great importance,as indicated in Atsuko's statement:Japanese way is just giving homework, and we dothe homework, but the part of the homework is56decided beforehand, so I know, just complete, whatI was given is enough to attend the class. ...Soafter finishing...what I did in my home, I will befree, so I don't concentrate on my class very much(Oct. 6, 1991).Based on the information given by the four subjects, then,we may conclude that the task-oriented, student-centredmethodologies practised by the instructors of Alpha andBeta classes constituted a new learning experience for theRitsumeikan students.At Ritsumeikan University, the four subjects weretaught English for two hours per week, over the period ofone term, by a native English speaker. While this isperhaps of no significance methodologically (i.e., in thatthe subjects unanimously reported on the novelty of thesmall group, task-based classroom assignments that theyexperienced after arriving in Canada), it may help toexplain certain intonation features apparently acquired bythe four subjects prior to their arrival in Canada,particularly the rising intonation associated withcomprehension checks.An interesting distinction emerged between the noviceand the advanced pairs of subjects regarding attendance atschool- or university-sponsored English clubs. While noneof the subjects belonged to this type of club in junior orsenior high school, both of the Case A subjects reportedbelonging to an English club at University. Atsuko had57been a member for one year, and Kenji for four months.Outside the school, access to English-speakingforeigners also appeared to vary between the two cases. Ina needs assessment questionnaire completed by theRitsumeikan students prior to departure, Ryuzo and Midoriboth reported a complete absence of contact withforeigners, while Kenji and Atsuko noted quite frequentcontact with foreign friends. The questionnaire did notstipulate, however, whether these foreign friends wereEnglish speakers or not, which might explain the apparentcontradiction in a statement given later by Kenji, whosaid that he had no English speaking acquaintances inJapan.All of the subjects reported frequent contact withEnglish films and music (the former of course havingJapanese subtitles), but none listened to morelinguistically demanding broadcasts, such as the BBC WorldService or the Voice of America.The CasesThe ensuing discussion will attempt to relateresearch findings to the research problems given above(pp. 37-38). The number and title given to each sub-heading in the following discussion of results for Cases Aand B therefore refers to the corresponding researchproblem.58Case A: The Advanced Speakers The two subjects in this case, Atsuko and Kenji,displayed different characteristics as learners andcommunicators. Atsuko generally appeared to be relaxed,cooperative, and loquacious in small group activities,while Kenji often seemed reticent and quite tentative inhis offerings to the group. The following discussion willdescribe linguistic and strategic development betweenthese two subjects.1) The Use of Performance Features Figures 4-7 illustrate the use of performancefeatures as they relate to corrective and planfulbehaviours for the two Case A subjects. In Figures 4 and5, corrective behaviour in each group session (G) andinterview (I) was calculated by adding the frequencies ofrepeats and self repairs (Appendix D) and then finding themean. The percentages of occurrence were calculated byfinding the means of the three percentages for repeats andself repairs in each interview and group session. Inmeasuring planful behaviour, the mean frequencies andpercentages of filled and unfilled pauses were calculatedfor each interview and group session.In both the planful and corrective categories, theratio between mean percentages and the total number ofperformance features overall is represented as a total atthe end of the horizontal axis. The dates of each group59session and interview are given in Appendix D.40353025Atsuko---KenjiPercent ofOccurrence 20151 05it». ..... - ... - .... -4,........∎	,,#...- -. .-. - - ..k\ 	 ...,\ 	 .....-\ 	 ....,N.. 	 ....•0Quest. 	 Il 	 13 	 14 TotalFrequency of 	 Atsuko 29 	 27 	 28 	 38 122Occurrence 	 Kenji 19 	 10 	 4 	 7 40Figure 4. Comparison of Case A corrective performancefeatures by questionnaire/interview.For both subjects in this case, the number ofperformance features in the group sessions was much lessthan the number found in the retrospective interviews. Wewould expect that the number of performance features inthe group session category is relatively small, becausethe interviews were longer than the video-taped sessions.60Atsuko---Kenji40353025Percent ofOccurrence 20151 050Frequency ofOccurrenceG1 	 G3 	 G4 	 TotalAtsuko 6 3 4 14Kenji 0 0 1 1Figure 5. Comparison of Case A corrective performancefeatures by group session.In addition, the group work often involved three or moregroup members, which limited the input and thus theperformance feature use of the subjects within the groupcontext. These factors indicate that a greater quantity ofperformance features should be found in the data collected61Quest. I1 13 14 TotalAtsuko 28 24 28 37 	 117Kenji 	 72 31 40 29 	 1700Frequency ofOccurrence■ 	 .. A' ■■ 	 .-- 	 .■ 	 ... 	 \■ 	 - 	 ∎ 	 *	■ -' 	 ■ 	 -- -- --*f 	 .ve... --*	----Atsuko— — Kenj i40353025Percent ofOccurrence 2015105Figure 6. Comparison of Case A planful performancefeatures by questionnaire/interview.in the questionnaire and interviews. What is surprising,however, is the extent to which the frequency ofperformance features decreases in the group sessions,particularly in the data for Kenji. At least two factorsmight be involved in this phenomenon. First, as indicated62Atsuko- -Kenj i40353025Percent ofOccurrence 20151050	G1 	 G3 	 G4 	 TotalFrequency of 	 Atsuko 4	 7 	 5 	 15Occurrence 	 Kenji 0 	 0 	 1 	 1Figure 7. Comparison of Case A planful performancefeatures by group session.above, the overall verbal input in the group sessionsmight decrease. Second, the level of linguistic andsociolinguistic difficulty in group interaction might belower than that in the interview context, resulting inqualitative differences between these two categories. Oneway of measuring this phenomenon is to calculate thepercentages of turns in the group sessions (i.e., NNS-NNS63interactions) coded as possessing performance features andcomparing them with similarly-coded turns in the interviewsessions (i.e., NS-NNS interactions). This calculationwould serve to factor out the quantity of input, thusallowing us to compare qualitative differences inperformance feature use between the group and interviewcontexts. In the coding schema, a turn was defined as anutterance uninterrupted by another speaker. Interruptionsby other speakers would therefore constitute thedemarcation boundaries of the turns taken by the subject.Table 3 gives a comparison of turns possessing performancefeatures as opposed to turns free of such features in thesubjects' coded group work and interviews.Seliger (1980) has claimed that performance featuresare indicative of either "planning" or "correcting" on thepart of the learner. Planning and correcting may be seenas the types of problem-solving behaviours that contributeto the process of the restructuring of knowledge(Karmiloff-Smith, 1986), and hence, to the acquisition ofthe second language. It is interesting to note,therefore, that in Table 3 the percentages of turnspossessing performance features are consistently higher inthe retrospective interviews than in the group work. Thiswould seem to suggest that the group sessions provide lessopportunity for the restructuring of linguistic knowledgethan do the interview sessions.64If correctors tend to use self repair and repeatsextensively, while planners are more dependent onhesitation pauses, as Seliger (1980) has suggested, thenthe data on Atsuko's use of these performance features areinconclusive as to her overall orientation to learning.Table 3Case A: Turns embedded with Performance Features*(Expressed as percentages of the total number of turns) Atsuko 	 KenjiSession 	 1 	 3 	 4 	 1 	 3 	 4Group 	 25 	 53 	 36 	 17Interview 	 67 	 61 	 55 	 65 	 46 	 52*excluding comprehension checksThe data presented in figures 4-7 show corrective andplanful behaviours for Atsuko quite evenly distributed atabout 15% in both the questionnaire and interviews. Whilethe group sessions showed greater fluctuations, planfuland corrective performance feature use, when expressed aspercentages of the total number of performance features inthe data, averaged 16% and 14% respectively. This wouldseem to suggest that Atsuko is both a corrector and a65planner.Kenji, on the other hand, appeared to be a carefulplanner of verbal output, as indicated by high percentagesof planful behaviour and much lower percentages ofcorrective behaviour in the data for questionnaire-interview contexts (Figures 4 and 6). It is difficult todraw any conclusions from the data for Kenji in the groupsession context (Figures 5 and 7). The extremely lowfrequency of performance features resulted in largefluctuations in the percentages of performance featureoccurrence, making it impossible to detect validbehavioural patterns. The low frequency of performancefeature use does indicate that Kenji was reluctant tospeak out in the group sessions, a finding corroborated byin-class observation.Comprehension Checks Both subjects used the comprehension check quitefrequently in the interviews (Appendix D). It wasinitially thought that the use of this performance featurewould increase over time as it became automatized in thesubjects' speech patterns. This did not appear to be thecase, although in the data for Kenji the increase in theuse of comprehension checks after the questionnaire (i.e.,in Interviews 1 - 4) is noticeable.2) Introspective Observations on the Use of Performance Features 66The discussion of introspective observations made bythe subjects in both cases will frequently make use ofexcerpts from the interviews and group work activities. Inthese excerpts, italic print will be used to highlight theparticular performance feature or comment indicative ofthe strategic behaviour under discussion. Should twodifferent types of strategic behaviour be of importance inone excerpt, the second type will be underlined. Theinterviewer's questions and comments are recorded in uppercase print, while lower case print has been used for thesubjects' responses. A number enclosed in square brackets(e.g., [3]) indicates the length in seconds of an unfilledpause. It should also be noted that excerpts used in thischapter are not verbatim transcriptions, but have beenedited for clarity of meaning. Samples of verbatimtranscriptions are found in Appendix E. Excerpts arenumbered in closed parentheses consecutively throughoutthe text.That Atsuko closely monitored her linguisticproduction is evident from the high percentages of falsestarts in the data. Interestingly, she reported not beingconscious of this process:(1)...We have learned grammar very strongly,stress, grammar was stressed to learn very correctvery correctly-IN JAPAN?67Yeah, in Japan, so, so our attitude to Englishis like that, that we will care the grammars, thegrammar, but I think, as for me, I'm, I'mnot so good at thinking, uh, carrying grammars,grammar because uh, it's very small thing. ...I have to be careful, but now, I'm very, uh,concentrating on speaking, so sometimes I cannot uh,concentr-concentrate on just one small thing (Jan.16, 1992).Despite her claim that she does not monitor linguisticoutput, the above excerpt indicates the degree to whichAtsuko did correct her own production errors. Aninteresting hypothesis emerges: due to the heavy emphasisplaced on proper grammatical construction in the Englishclasses in which Atsuko had participated in Japan, it ispossible that the self-monitoring process becameautomatized, so that she rarely had conscious knowledge ofmonitoring for production errors. Corrective behaviourremained a fairly constant feature in Atsuko's verbaloutput (Figures 4-7) despite her avowals to the contrary.Thus, no gradual lessening of corrective behaviour astarget language norms of production were acquired can bereported here.For Kenji, the data indicate that planning was animportant orientation to verbal output. This is in strongaccordance with the introspective reports of Kenjihimself, as reported in the initial questionnaire-interview:(2) Maybe we can say any language conversation is68very difficult to make sentences in my head, so speakcorrectly is very difficult (Oct. 7, 1991).(3) Maybe, the type of grammar it's very differentfrom Japanese types of grammar. I can make thecomparison in writing, but I cannot make the sentencein the head, so it's very hard to make sentence.SO WHEN YOU SAY 'IN THE HEAD', YOU MEAN FOR EXAMPLE,WHEN TALKING WITH SOMEONE?Yeah. Maybe I can say, I can make sentence to taketoo much time in the head. So, what, I cannot speakquickly as quickly as I can (Oct. 7, 1991).Kenji's introspective reports, however, are nottotally consistent. In excerpts 2 and 3 (from thequestionnaire) for example, he appears to place emphasison difficult grammatical forms in English which thus makeplanning more difficult. However, in excerpt 4 (fromInterview 1), he seems to be reporting that lexical itemsor overall meaning take predominance over grammar:(4) He doesn't, can't afford to have grammar rules.When he is speaking, he is focussing on the speaking[reported by interpreter] (Nov. 5, 1991).The data would appear to support the supposition thatKenji monitors for meaning more than grammaticality, inthat self-repair performance features, which often attendto grammatical errors, are not prominent in his speech(see Appendix D).Interestingly, by the final interview, Kenji appearedto regard excessive planning as an impediment to effective69conversation:(5)...ARE THERE ANY STRATEGIES THAT YOU USE TO TRY TOUNDERSTAND WHAT THE PERSON IS SAYING, OR TO MAKEYOURSELF UNDERSTOOD TO THE PERSON?I don't think I use that kind of strategy. Just, Ihave to understand what the other persons says, justI have to react almost, I don't think anything, justsay something, or-JUST SAY SOMETHING?-no strategy....Yeah. Maybe so. That's why, I cannot speak out?Just thinking, "What should I say", or, "What is asuitable word?", or, just thinking so, ...I couldn'tsay anything (Jan. 28, 1992).The data do not indicate that Kenji gradually reducedhis use of long pauses to conform with target languagenorms of production, although it appears that he didbecome conscious of the need to incorporate morespontaneity into his verbal output.3) Dynamics of Communication in the Group Sessions Atsuko, on the basis of most of the data collected onher, could well be classified as a "High input generator"(Seliger, 1977), or a second language learner whofrequently initiates conversation with speakers of thetarget language. This was not always the case, however.One group session, for example, involved members of aclass debating team planning strategies on the abortionissue, the topic that Atsuko had voted for during theselection process. She remained curiously and70uncharacteristically silent throughout the group work,and later explained her reasons for doing so:(6)...the reason why I was quiet is because that the,uh, because of the person who sit next to me. Uh, theperson who talked most mostly, uh, I cannot speakabout the, uh I cannot speak in front of him. I'm notgood at speaking with him, because he is so smart, sowhen I talk, when I talk about my opinion, I cannothave any, I cannot have confidence, so, I think inmyself, but I am afraid to express what I think,about it (Nov. 12, 1991).Significantly, Kenji also pointed out his discomfortin working with the same student mentioned by Atsuko:(7) DID YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE OTHER MEMBERSOF YOUR GROUP TODAY?Comfortable? Not comfortable. It's always only X [thestudent]. His English is good, so, he likes tospeak, to say his opinion. So most of the time heand another student [name given] is, uh, kind ofleader in our class. Because of his, their goodEnglish (Nov. 19, 1991).Excerpt 7 provides an excellent working definition ofthe qualities of a "leader". It is not far removed fromthe description given by Dearing and Rogers (1990) (seepp. 21-22 above) of leaders in Japanese science studygroups. In Kenji's definition, two qualities seem topredominate: 1) the group leader is confident, and 2) thegroup leader is recognized as an excellent speaker ofEnglish.Video-tapes of group work involving Atsuko, Kenji,and the unnamed group leader reveal interesting71differences, possibly gender-related, in the respectivebehaviours of the two subjects. Atsuko, for the greaterpart of the group session, remained quietly staring at herexercise book. In Kenji's group, eye contact was almostexclusively directed toward the group leader when otherstudents exercised their opportunities to take turns inthe conversation. Kenji himself spoke infrequently duringthe session, and his comments might best be described astentative:(8)...attract many Japanese people in Canada. It notmake sense to this question? [7) You don'tunderstand? [Eye contact directed toward student X](Nov. 16, 1991).For both subjects, responses to the presence ofstudent X might best be described as submissive, although,in this particular case, Kenji's response appeared toinvolve an attempt to communicate on a level approachingequality with the group leader, while Atsuko's responsewas muted at best. This is perhaps an example of groupscreating hierarchies where none objectively exist (Nakane,1971). In any case, it is interesting that both Atsukoand Kenji were able, by the final interview, to articulateevolving strategies for dealing with their submissiveresponses in this type of group situation. For Atsuko, theneed to compete with those learners whom she perceived asbeing more articulate became an extremely important72strategy of motivation:(9) I don't want to be defeated by my friends inEnglish. I have a lot of rivals, I think my friendsare rivals. Rivals. ...So the competition, there'sgood energy for me to, to encourage myself to studyEnglish. Yeah. Then I will escape the feeling ofinferiority (January 16, 1992).Kenji, on the other hand, was able to articulate amotivating strategy, but did not appear confident inactually carrying it out:(10) I should, attract, or [4], attract or [5], Ishould [4] be more active to attract other peoplefrom my opinion [3]. Or, I try to join theirconversation. But I can't (Nov. 16, 1991).It is difficult to judge whether these strategies weredeveloped during the duration of the research period, orwhether the subjects had long been aware of them. Giventhe novelty of the learning environment, both inside andoutside of the classroom, we might cautiously concludethat these were new strategies for the two subjects, atleast in regard to studying a second language, and thatthey may have been employed strategically to the learningtask.4) Changes in Learning Strategies Over Time Table 4 outlines introspectively-reported changes inlearning strategies for the two subjects during the data-gathering period.73Table 4Case A: Reported Change in the Use of Learning Strategies AtsukoQuestionnaire	 Interview 4(October 6, 1991) 	 (January 16, 1992)1. Pronunciation: Repetition,observation of NS vocal-izations.2. Vocabulary: Extensivereading. Repetition ofand concentration on newwords. Writing down newvocabulary.3. Listening Comp.: SpeakingSpeaking with Canadianfriends and teachers.1. Pronunciation:Repetition, observa-tion of NS vocal-izations.2. Vocabulary: None.Atsuko was currentlywondering how best toexpand her vocabulary.3. Listening Comp.:Watching movies withno subtitles.Listening to a radioprogram featuring a"teacher-consultant."table continues 74Table 4 (cont'd)Case A: Reported Change in the Use of Learning Strategies Listening in on NS-NS conversations.4. Conversation: Listening 	 4. Conversation: Noin on NS-NS 	 strategy reported.conversations in thecafeteria.5. Reading Comp.: Concen-	5. Reading Comp.:tration on the intro- 	 Focussing on theduction and conclusion	first and lastof the passage. 	 sentences of eachIn each paragraph, 	 paragraph. Under-concentrating on the first 	 lining key contentor topic sentence and the 	 and function words.last sentence. 	 Skipping over un-familiar words toattain greaterreading speed.6. Grammar: No strategies 	 6. Grammar: No strategiesreported. 	 reported.7. Writing: Completion of 	 7. Writing: No strategieswritten assignments. 	 reported.table continues75Table 4 (cont'd)Case A: Reported Change in the Use of Learning StrategiesKenjiQuestionnaire 	 Interview 4(October 7, 1991) 	 (January 28, 1992)1. Pronunciation: Repeating 	 1. Pronunciation: Self-problem words, both 	 analysis ofvocally and silently. 	 pronunciationdifficulties, afterobserving problemareas when speakingwith NS.2. Vocabulary: Making lists 	 2. Vocabulary: Use ofand repeating them. 	 dictionary.3. Listening Comp. 	 3. Listening Comp.: Listening to the news on 	 Listening to the newsthe radio. 	 on the radio.4. Conversation: No strategy 	 4. Conversation: First,reported. 	 understanding what theother person says.Then, "just reacting"to whattable continues 76Table 4 (cont'd)Case A: Reported Change in the Use of Learning Strategies s/he says.5. Reading Comprehension: 	 5. Reading Comprehension:6. Grammar: None reported.7. Writing: Getting helpfrom others inconstructing sentences.Depending on thenature of the readingmaterial, skimming forthe main idea andchecking thedictionary forunfamiliar words.6. Grammar: Not asked.7. Writing: No strategyreported.Reading widely (books andnewspapers).It would appear that similarities developed between thetwo subjects regarding reading strategies. Atsuko hadalready begun to develop a reading strategy when she wasfirst interviewed; by the final interview, however, shehad further refined this process by concentrating on keyvocabulary and reading for context where vocabulary wasnot known. The strategy was apparently developed toimprove the speed with which she read and to lessendependence on reference materials such as dictionaries inclassroom work. Kenji had also begun a strategy of77scanning written material, although he appeared to rely tosome extent on the dictionary as well. These readingstrategies are, of course, quite frequently taught, so itwould not be surprising if both subjects had receivedformal classroom instruction on reading techniques. Inaddition, the limited amount of time available in which tomeet deadlines imposed on in-class work as well as writtenassignments would likely have provided sufficientincentive for the frequent use of reading strategies.In the use of listening strategies, both subjectshad, by the final interview, reached out to the media inthe form of motion pictures and the radio foropportunities in which to practice. This might beindicative of the inherent difficulties involved incarrying out direct, substantive interaction with nativespeakers.Overall, it appears that strategic behaviour in CaseA was modified over time to reflect the stringent demandson time imposed by course work. In addition, the membersof the case appeared to specialize in strategic areas mostvital to personal or academic priorities. It is thereforesignificant to note that, in the final interview, Atsukospecified listening as the area she most wanted to improveupon, while Kenji noted that conversation, in its fullsense of decoding and encoding messages, was his priority.785) The Restructuring of Procedural Knowledge Relatedto Linguistic Behavioura) Psycholinguistic Knowledge With the possible exception of Kenji's use ofcomprehension checks, there appeared to be little changein patterns of performance feature use over time for bothmembers of Case A. This would lead us to the conclusionthat no major restructuring of corrective or planfulbehaviours occurred over the four-month data collectionperiod. Indeed, these orientations to verbal output may beso basic to a learner's personality that we should notexpect any change other than a very gradual lessening,over longer periods of time, of extremes in corrective orplanful behaviour such as very long unfilled pauses ormultiple self repairs.The discussion which follows on the actual mechanicsof restructuring is not directly related to the researchproblems in Chapter 3. It would seem important, however,in this section to discuss a possible means by whichperformance features are used in the process of achievingautomaticity of linguistic form, which is thought to be apart of the restructuring process (McLaughlin, 1990).While it is difficult to analyze Kenji's output, becauseprocesses of automatization are largely hidden behindunfilled pauses, in Atsuko's case these processes may beseen in her ability to scaffold (Hatch, 1978). The excerpt79below illustrates a pattern of horizontal (i.e.,syntactical, or intra-speaker) scaffolding (McLaughlin,1987) frequently found in Atsuko's speech. Suchscaffolding seemed to occur frequently around newly-acquired lexical items (e.g., "on my floor" in excerpt 11below), where Atsuko appeared to incorporate newconstructions into the conversation based on associativelinks with previously-acquired forms (e.g. "in my room" inexcerpt 11 below).Scaffolding might also occur, as Ellis (1984)suggests, around automatized chunks of formulaic speechwhere the memorized formula serves as an "anchor point"(McLaughlin, 1987, p. 75) around which the rest of theutterance is constructed. For example, the phrase "as forme", which was frequently found in Atsuko's output, seemsto be a focal point of organization in excerpt 12 below.(11) DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH MUCH, HERE AT TOTEMPARK, WHEN YOU'RE NOT IN CLASS?Uh, yeah, when I'm in the classroom, in the classroomI speak only English, but after class, at cafeteria,or at the Japanese students' room, I speak Japanesewith Japanese friends. But in my room, in my room,uh, no, no, on the floor, on the floor, on my floor,I often visit my [Canadian] friends' room to talkwith my friends (Oct. 6, 1991).(12) ...then we, we we we had, we got one answers. SoI think sometimes, it, as for me, it's necessaryto away from the topic (Nov. 19, 1991).The two performance features that are used in the80scaffolding processes above are repeats and false starts,both of which are considered to indicate planfulbehaviour. From the viewpoint of second languageacquisition, then, corrective behaviour may possibly be ameans by which automaticity of linguistic forms isachieved.b) Canadian Sociolinguistic Knowledge Within the hierarchical structure of the group, arestructuring of behaviour did appear to be underway forboth subjects. Atsuko reportedly welcomed the idea ofincreased competition with rivals, and Kenji saw his needto assert himself more forcefully in conversation. Theseobservations were introspective reports of idealsituations; further classroom observation was not able toverify the degree to which change actually did occur.These reports are important, however, regardless ofthe degree to which the two subjects were actually able toimplement them in classroom activities. Given the teacher-centred Japanese second language classroom described byShimahara (1979) and Duppenthaler et al. (1989), wherestudents' comments and opinions may be considereddisruptive, Kenji and Atsuko do appear to have developedat the very least an awareness of competitive orientationsto classroom group work. These orientations are more inkeeping with Canadian norms of classroom behaviour, andmay thus have been learned from the Canadian university81environment in which these subjects were studying. Severalaspects of this shift in awareness remain unclear,however. These are: 1) to what extent were the subjectsaware of the importance of proactive orientations tolearning English while they were still in Japan?; 2) towhat extent did the classroom environment, includinginstructors who encouraged discussion and debate in groupwork, influence the subjects' attitudes?; and 3) to whatextent did the university environment (i.e., interactionwith NS students and others) play a role in thisattitudinal change? The above factors cannot beobjectively measured within the context of this study; itis perhaps of some significance, however, that both Atsukoand Kenji did not make their observations oncompetitiveness until the final interview, which mightsuggest that a shift in attitudes developed gradually overtime for both learners. If this is the case, we mightexpect that the subjects' observations of examples of suchbehaviour from within their new learning environment wereleading to a gradual restructuring of the sociolinguisticbehaviour of the subjects.c) Strategic Behaviour A positive restructuring of strategic behaviour didappear to take place for both subjects, especially in thearea of reading. The use of native speakers other thanteachers as resources, however, did not appear to be well-82developed among these subjects. We might speculate thatcultural and affective barriers prevented more rewardinginteraction with native speakers of English.Summary for Case AIn summary, the analysis of the performance featuresof the subjects of Case A revealed possiblepsycholinguistic differences that affected linguisticproduction. Kenji appeared to plan his utterancescarefully before speaking, while Atsuko seemed to mixelements of planful and corrective behaviour.Although the two subjects dealt with group authorityin different ways, they both appeared to be affected quitestrongly by the presence of leaders who were perceived tobe excellent communicators in the English language. Bothhad reported on the need to interact more competitivelywith these leaders and within the group context generally.In the development of learning strategies, Atsuko andKenji seemed to take a pragmatic approach, adopting anddeveloping strategies that brought immediate benefits totheir academic endeavours as well as to personal areas ofpriority. While they both made use of strategicprocedures capitalizing on the fact that they were livingin an English-speaking environment, it seems somewhatsurprising that they did not emphasize interaction withnative speakers, except in largely passive activities suchas listening to NS-NS conversation, or repeating NS models83of proununciation.A process of the restructuring of strategic andsociolinguistic behaviour did appear to be underway tsome extent. The members of Case A seemed to berestructuring knowledge around pragmatic strategicbehaviour that would enable them to participate morefully in the classroom learning experience.Case B: The Novice Speakers Data from the analysis of performance featuresindicates that Midori and Ryuzo, the two novice speakers,appeared to be largely involved in planning theirutterances during the interviews and group sessions. Thiswas so, perhaps, because little lexical or syntactic inputhad become automatized in their verbal output. Someobservable differences do emerge, however, in the natureof the planning operations performed by each subject. Theensuing discussion will examine similarities anddifferences in the strategic behaviour of these twosubjects.1) The Use of Performance Features Figures 8-11 show performance feature use as itrelates to corrective and planful behaviours for the CaseB subjects. The manner by which the percentages andfrequencies of occurrence were calculated has beendescribed above (pp 54-55).The most salient feature in the data from the84questionnaire/interviews (Figures 8 and 10) is thestriking degree of similarity in the orientations tolearning of these two subjects. Corrective behaviour forboth subjects has a mean range extending from 7% to 13% ofperformance feature use throughout the questionnaire,interview, and group sessions. Planful behaviour appearsalmost as uniform, with a mean range extending from 28% to38%. Both subjects, then, appeared to be strongly40353025Percent of 20Occurrence15Midori---Ryuzo105  0Frequency of MidoriOccurrence 	 RyuzoFigure 8. Comparison of Case B corrective performancefeatures by questionnaire/interview.Quest. Il 13 14 Total6 6 28 15 3733 11 13 32 10385oriented towards planful behaviour, with filled pauses asthe dominant performance feature (Appendix D).As was true with Case A, data from the group sessions areless conclusive. Although planful behaviour appears to bethe dominant orientation for both subjects in thesesessions, the frequency of performance feature use is very----Midori---Ryuzo40353025Percent ofOccurrence 20151050G1 G3 G4 TotalFrequency ofOccurrenceMidori 3 2 0 6Ryuzo 2 5 2 10Figure 9. Comparison of Case B corrective performancefeatures by group session.86low, resulting in quite dramatic fluctuations in bothorientations to learning.Ryuzo used performance features to a much greater degreethan Midori, as is evident in the frequencies ofoccurrence given in Figures 8-il. This was especially truein the questionnaire/interview context, and might beindicative of an intensive process of hypothesis40353025Percent ofOccurrence 201510Midori-- —RyuzoQuest. Il 13 14 Total28 26 27 40 121110 37 62 95 30350Frequency of MidoriOccurrence 	 RyuzoFigure 10. Comparison of Case B planful performancefeatures by questionnaire/interview.87TotalG3 G4----Midori----RyuzoG1\formulation and automatization of linguistic forms withinthe interlanguage of this subject. This will be discussedat greater length below.The ratio of performance feature use to total turnstaken is also higher in the questionnaire/interviews thanin the group sessions, especially for Midori (Table 5).40353025Percent ofOccurrence 20151050Frequency ofOccurrenceMidori 5 5 0 10Ryuzo 4 20 3 27Figure 11. Comparison of Case B planful performancefeatures by group session.88As was true with Case A, this would appear to indicatethat the interview sessions provided greater opportunitiesfor practice at higher skill levels. In Ryuzo's case,however, we might speculate that the relatively highratios of performance feature use to turns taken in thequestionnaire/interviews as well as in the group sessionsindicate that the level of interaction was sufficientlychallenging for him in both contexts. This would appear tobe less true for Midori in the group context at least, afinding which coincides with the subjective impressionsyielded through observation, where Ryuzo appeared tostruggle with the content of group discussions to agreater degree than Midori.Case B: Turns embedded with Performance Features*(Expressed as percentages of the total number of turns)Midori RyuzoSession 1 3 4 1 3 4Group 26 18 - 50 58 42Interview 44 44 47 60 68 82*excluding comprehension checks89Comprehension Checks The data on comprehension checks (Appendix D) areinconclusive in terms of longitudinal change in thedevelopment of what is considered largely to be a featureof Canadian English. In Midori's case there did appear tobe an observable acquisition of this performance feature,as indicated by the comparatively high totals found inInterview 4 and Group Session 3. Ryuzo, however, wasalready using comprehension checks quite extensivelyduring the Table 5 initial questionnaire; its use thendecreased in Interviews 1 and 3, only to rise sharply inInterview 4.2) Introspective Observations and the Use of Performance Features Introspective observations on the nature of planning,which was the basic orientation towards verbal output ofboth subjects, dealt mainly with perceived changes overtime in the process of internally translating output fromJapanese to English before verbal production. Inelaborating upon this phenomenon, Midori acknowledged thatsome change over time had occurred:(13)...DO YOU TRY TO THINK OF WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY INJAPANESE FIRST AND THEN TRANSLATE IT INTO ENGLISHBEFORE YOU SPEAK?Um, before, so last term, maybe I did so, butrecently I tried to didn't so. Because Japanese order90is different than English order. So, English issubject, verb and adjective - something that.Japanese is no subject and long adjective, orsomething that. So, unless I change my thinking,maybe my English doesn't improve. So I try to thinkEnglish way, so recently I didn't do so (Jan. 31,1992).The process appeared to be similar, but perhaps lesscomplete for Ryuzo:(14) Five months ago at first I make full sentence inJapanese, then I speak out. Uh, speak out in English.But now maybe I think about a part of, so, a part ofsentence is thinked by Japanese> but a part ofsentence is thinked by English (Jan. 28, 1992).That the two subjects were attempting to move towardsgreater congruence with target language norms ofproduction might lead to speculation that their output,especially as indicated through observed performancefeatures, would show a greater number of indications ofcorrective, as opposed to planful behaviour, as output wasinfluenced by greater degrees of denativization. The codeddata do not support this supposition, however. This mightsuggest that basic characteristics of linguistic behaviourdo not easily change, and that a learner remains within acertain orientation (e.g., planning or correcting) despitechanges in individual perception or in the learningenvironment.3) Dynamics of Communication in the Group Sessions Interviews with Midori revealed a fairly regimented91conception on her part regarding the hierarchy of groupstructure. She commented, for example, on the importanceof leaders in the group:(15) If someone doesn't lead us, it is harder toprogress ... I know, I am more speak than othermembers, but I don't like to be leader, uh so, secondor third (Oct. 31, 1991).Like Midori, Ryuzo recognized a hierarchy incommunicative relations within the group, and felt that heoccupied a certain position within this hierarchy:(16)...he likes to express his opinion, but a kind ofa step down, not leader, but just one of the groupmembers. ... not a first kind of top leader, butmaybe second or third leader [reported byinterpreter] (Oct. 31, 1991).An important function of the group leader becameapparent quite accidentally during the course of aninterview with Midori one afternoon. The interviewer,remembering Midori's charitable attitude in inviting intoher group a student who had seemingly missed either themain lecture or the preliminary work to the groupsessions, asked her if the exercise under discussion hadbeen made more difficult by the absence of one of themembers prior to the group session. The subsequent replyand ensuing discussion revealed that the "chairperson"took on a role not unlike that of the teacherin the more traditional lockstep classroom:92(17) WAS THIS EXERCISE MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOU BECAUSEONE OF THE STUDENTS WAS NOT THERE FOR THE LECTURE?No. Everyone, uh everyone. Uh, two boys and Iattended.OK. I THOUGHT ONE OF THEM WAS NOT THERE, BECAUSE ITSEEMED THAT YOU WERE EXPLAINING YOUR OPINIONS OR YOURANSWERS MUCH MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY WAS. IT SEEMEDLIKE YOU WERE EXPLAINING TO HIM MATERIAL FROM THELECTURE AND THEN HE WOULD QUESTION YOU.Um hum. And so that, that, his role is chairperson.Like chairperson. So, I and other guy [the thirdgroup member) answer, and give suggestion andopinion.WERE YOU HAPPY WITH THAT SITUATION, WHERE YOU HAD ONEPERSON SORT OF CHAIRPERSON ASKING QUESTIONS AND YOUWERE GIVING INFORMATION?Yes, yes.DID YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?Yes. I don't like play the role of chairperson so itis easier to answer or give questions.UM HUM. DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO PLAY THE ROLE OF THECHAIRPERSON?Maybe. I think so.YEAH? FOR WHAT REASON?Um, it is difficult for us, our discussion (Nov. 14,1991).A tempting, but unverifiable hypothesis regarding thisphenomenon would be that these students, all novices inthe task-based, small-group format of the ENED 379 class,adopted a more familiar lockstep format within the smallgroup. If this were indeed the case, the student whose93ability in English was rated the highest might quitenaturally assume the role of 'teacher', and commencequestioning the other students about the topic. Based onobservations of Case B group sessions, this hierarchicalstructure did not appear to inhibit interaction. It mayhave been a culturally-acceptable means of imposing orderupon a new form of classroom behaviour.4) Changes in Learning Strategies Over time Table 6 outlines introspectively-reported changes inlearning strategies for the two subjects during the data-gathering period.Table 6Case B: Reported Change in the Use of Learning Strategies MidoriQuestionnaire	 Interview 4(October 17, 1991) 	 (January 31, 1992)1. Pronunciation: Nonegiven.1. Pronunciation: Enrollmentin ISP pronunciationclass. Requestinginstructors' help withtable continues 94Table 6 (cont'd)Case B: Reported Change in the Use of Learning Strategiespron. difficulties.2. Vocabulary: Bought special 2. Vocabulary: Reading, thenvocabulary textbooks to 	 writing down certainpass high school 	 difficult words.examinations in Japan.3. Listening Comprehension: 	 3. Listening Comprehension:Listening to the radio 	 Conversation with NS.and music. 	 Watching movies. Makingdictations based onvideo-taped lectures.4. Conversation: None 	 4. Conversation: Speakingreported. 	 with Japanese friends inEnglish.5. Reading Comprehension: 	 5. Reading comprehension:Studying school texts. 	 Skimming reading materialfirst, then checking thedictionary meaning ofwords deemed to beimportant. (Prior tothis, Midori reportedchecking the meanings ofall vocabulary she wasunfamiliar with in hertable continues 95Table 6 (cont'd)Case B: Reported Change in the Use of Learning Strategies reading material).6. Grammar: None 	 6. Grammar: Attempting toreported. 	 "change thinking" (i.e.,instead of transferringLi forms).7. Writing: None	 7. writing: Doing homework.reported.RyuzoQuestionnaire 	 Interview 4(October 11, 1991)	 (January 28, 1992)1. Pronunciation: None	1. Pronunciation: Attendedgiven (brief, inaudible 	 ISP pronunciation class.reference made to 	 Language lab work on apronunciation strategies).	weekly basis in regularcourse work.2. Vocabulary: Ryuzo de- 	 2. Vocabulary: Conversationscribed a vocabulary	with Japanese speakers ofgame he thought would 	 English.table continues96Table 6 (cont'd)Case B: Reported Change in the Use of Learning Strategies help to learn vocabulary.He had never actually usedthis game, however.3. Listening Comprehension: 	 3. Listening Comprehension:Use of cassette tapes.	 Guessing meaning fromover-all content of themessage. If this fails,proceeding to ask for anexplanation.4. Conversation: In Japan, 	 4. Conversation:use of a specific text- 	 Conversation withbook. In Canada, 	 Japanese speakers ofpractice with native 	 English.speakers.5. Reading Comprehension: 	 5. Reading Comprehension:Reading textbooks and 	 Skim-reading Anthropologynovels. 	 and Political Sciencetexts for meaning(without relyingheavily on a dictionary).6. Grammar: Use of a 	 6. Grammar: None given.dictionary.7. Writing: Writing 	 7. Writing: None given.stories, keeping a diary.97By Interview 4, both subjects had reported usingreading strategies more appropriate to their heavyworkloads. These strategies included skimming for mainideas, using context to derive meaning, and relying lesson the dictionary as a support.An interesting issue arose in the area ofconversation, where we might expect native speakers toprovide a key resource. Both subjects reported relyingmore on advanced-level Japanese speakers of English todevelop their conversational skills. This was so,according to Ryuzo, for the following reason:(18)...in Japanese people's group...other Japanesepeople...think about my thoughts and I know theythinking about my thought, so I don't feel bad. Butnative speaker...don't think about my thought likeJapanese people, so I thinking about something or I'mlooking for words...they speak many things, so Ican't look for words, so I feel bad (Nov. 14, 1991).Midori's reasons were slightly different thanRyuzo's. In her case, the speed of NS conversation isdisconcerting:(19) Also I try to speak with my Canadian friends,but her speaking is very fast and it is harder forme> and so maybe I stayed Japanese friends who speakvery frequently> rather than Canadian friends (Jan.31, 1992).Conversation with Japanese speakers of English appears tobe more appealing to these subjects for both cultural (the98nature of the pause) and linguistic (the speed of NSconversation) reasons. This raises questions about thedegree to which linguistic restructuring can occur withouta corresponding restructuring related to procedural normsof communication within a culture (Gumperz, 1990).Also related to restructuring is Midori'sintrospective comment about the need to "change [her]thinking" regarding target language norms of grammaticalproduction. This comment quite obviously does not offerconclusive evidence that a restructuring of knowledge hadindeed taken place. It does, however, raise questionsabout a possible link between the restructuring processand conscious awareness that the process is occurring. Inother words, could this type of introspective comment havebeen made without having been grounded first on a deeperawareness that a restructuring of linguistic knowledge wasoccurring? It would appear that this complex question ofthe interface between conscious and subconscious processesof second language acquisition will not be explained fullywithout further research and analysis.5) The Restructuring of Linguistic Behaviour a) Psycholinguistic KnowledgeWith the exception of Midori's use of comprehensionchecks, patterns of performance feature use appeared toremain similar over time for both subjects. It is perhapsto be expected that little change would occur in99measurements taken over a four-month period with novicespeakers of English. As was true with Case A, though, thediscourse of one of the Case B subjects, Ryuzo, doesprovide a window into the nature of automaticity.For Ryuzo, planning seemed largely confined toscaffolding upon automatized chunks of speech. Thefollowing turn from the questionnaire provides examples ofcommon speech patterns in this subject's verbal output:(20) Reading, about reading, so [3] I um use, I use,I use textbook use textbook about, I think I use Ithink, I think I use textbook about anthropology andI have used novel (Oct. 11, 1991).The "anchor points" (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 75)commonly used by Ryuzo upon which to build phrases appearto be automatized verb conjugations (e.g. "I use" and "Ithink"), forms which he quite conceivably studied anddrilled in junior and senior high schools. Lexical items(e.g., "textbook" and "anthropology") appeared to be addedto the automatized structures. Several combinations ofthese scaffolded forms might be used in the constructionof a sentence. If indeed this is an accurate descriptionof one of the production processes inherent in Ryuzo'sinterlanguage, it is similar to Ellis's (1985, pp. 167-170) explanation of the role of formulaic speech inbeginning learners' acquisition of a second language.Ryuzo's behaviour can also be related to that of Wes100(Schmidt, 1983), whose verbal output was composed of ahigh degree of memorized formulaic speech. While Wesappeared to choose formulaic speech as a strategy ofcommunication and thus consciously memorized usefulexpressions, for Ryuzo it would appear that thememorization of grammatical forms provided a useful baseupon which further planning took place. This would seem tobe a process indicative of the automatization oflinguistic forms, which is thought to be a precursor torestructuring (McLaughlin, 1990).b) Canadian Sociolinguistic Knowledge There did not appear to be a restructuring ofprocedural knowledge related to the hierarchical nature ofthe group. In fact, the two subjects appeared to besatisfied with their place in the group's structure. If,as was noted above, the group became a replacement for thetraditional lockstep format of the regular languageclassroom, it did not appear to deprive the subjects ofchances for interaction.It would, of course, be unrealistic to assume thatthe Case B subjects gained no knowledge of Canadiansociolinguistic patterns through exposure to theirinstructors and other UBC students. However, theintrospective reports of Midori and Ryuzo do not indicatethat an increased sensitivity towards sociolinguisticknowledge had consciously occurred, unless the apparent101preference of both subjects (but particularly Ryuzo) topractice conversation with Japanese speakers of English beviewed as a negative reaction to the difficulties,sociolinguistic or otherwise, of interacting with nativespeakers.c) Strategic Knowledge In the area of learning strategies, a positiverestructuring of reading strategies did appear to develop,based on the instrumental needs of the subjects. Inaddition, a widening of strategic behaviour occurred inother areas. For example, in attempting to improve theirlistening skills, both subjects had moved from a relianceupon the radio or cassette tapes to more interactiveapproaches which involved inferring meaning fromconversational content. Conversational competence appearedto develop largely in conjunction with Japanese speakersof English. While this strategy may be seen to fall shortof the ideal immersion behaviour of widespread practicewith native speakers, it is still a much more interactiveapproach to conversation than those reported by bothsubjects in the questionnaire. In general, it would seemthat the overall strategic behaviour of both of subjectsmoved towards a much greater degree of interaction withthe various opportunities presented by the foreignlearning environment.102Summary for Case B The analysis of performance features of the Case Bsubjects indicated that planning of oral output occurredextensively over the period of study. In addition, Ryuzoappeared to scaffold output horizontally, i.e., on thebasis of the repetition of automatized phrases aroundwhich creative communication occurred. This did not occurin Midori's verbal output to any large extent.In their relationships with the group, both subjectsseemed satisfied to maintain a hierarchical position belowthat of group leader. It was observed that group leadersappeared to direct question and answer sessions, taking ona function similar to that of the teacher in thetraditional lockstep classroom. Both subjects appeared tohave sufficient opportunity for interaction within thishierarchical structure, although it must be noted that theratio of performance features to turns was lower in thegroup sessions than it was in the interviews. Thissuggests that opportunities for planning and correctingwere greater in NS-NNS interactions. For both subjects,however, culturally-or linguistically-related factorsappeared to mitigate against the benefits of interactionwith native speakers. Thus, advanced-level JapaneseEnglish-speakers were seen as the ideal conversationalpartners.In the classroom, time-saving strategies in reading103comprehension were adopted by both students. Thesestrategies were aimed at gleaning important informationfrom within the wide array of reading material distributedto the subjects in their various classes.Comparison/Contrast of the Two Cases a) Psycholinguistic behaviour Three of the four subjects were classified as beingpredominantly "planners", while Atsuko was characterizedas functioning within both planful and correctiveorientations. There was no evidence of change in theseorientations towards verbal output, suggesting that theyare perhaps fundamental characteristics of languagelearners' personalities.The use of comprehension checks expressed throughrising intonation had increased for all four subjects bythe final interviews and group sessions, suggesting thatthis sociolinguistic feature of Canadian English had tosome extent been automatized. This finding must beinterpreted with caution, however, especially as two ofthe subjects, Atsuko and Ryuzo, were already usingcomprehension checks quite extensively during the initialquestionnaire. While it would seem highly unlikely thatthe intonation pattern that accompanies this feature wastransferred from Japanese (R. F. Berwick, personalcommunication, March 7, 1992), it is possible that thesesubjects had assimilated the comprehension check from a104native speaking instructor while still in Japan.b) Sociolinguistic BehaviourWhile both cases undoubtedly assimilated a great dealof sociolinguistic behaviour from native speakers ofEnglish, it would appear that the advanced speakers wentfurther towards a restructuring of this knowledge, atleast as it applies to group dynamics in the classroom.Both Case A subjects articulated the need for a morecompetitive attitude in group work, although neither wereobserved demonstrating such behaviour. The Case Bsubjects, on the other hand, seemed content with theirroles in the group sessions; because they occupiedsecondary positions in group hierarchical structures, theywere able to interact and give opinions freely and withoutany observable anxiety.c) Strategic BehaviourBoth cases appeared to widen their repertoire ofstrategic behaviours in conjunction with the increasedopportunity for interaction with the media resources,native speakers and committed Japanese learners of Englishthat characterized the learning environment. In theclassroom, reading strategies appeared to be extensivelyrefined by the four subjects, a reflection perhaps oftheir heavy workloads. By the time of the finalinterview, only Kenji reported interaction with nativespeakers as a strategy for the improvement of105conversational skills. Atsuko and Ryuzo had, in theinitial questionnaire, reported on the use of nativespeakers as a means of improving conversational skills. Bythe end of the data collection period, however, neithersubject appeared to be practicing this particularstrategy. This would appear to be in keeping withBishop's similarity-attraction theory (p. 20 above).Strategic behaviour, then, appeared to follow bothgeneral trends and individual priorities, and thereforecannot be characterized in a case-specific manner. Eachsubject appeared to expand strategic behaviour, however,by making use of the varying resources found within thelearning environment.SummaryThe study reported on the nature of psycho- andsociolinguistic behaviour between and within the two casesin the areas of group dynamics and performance feature andlearning strategy use.Findings revealed that performance feature use didappear to correspond to some degree with classificationsof the subjects as "planners" or "correctors". A moreimportant finding, perhaps, was that the use ofperformance features by two of the subjects (one from eachcase) provided a basis for the analysis of the scaffoldingprocess, itself a window into the means by which a learnertests hypotheses about linguistic knowledge and gradually106comes to automatize this knowledge.Data for comprehension checks--the performancefeature initially thought to be outside the linguisticexperience of the subjects--were inconclusive indemonstrating that a sociolinguistic feature of CanadianEnglish had been automatized. It was found, however, thatfor each subject, percentages of comprehension check usagewere the highest in interview and group sessions 3 and 4,occurring near the end of the period of data collection.Strategic behaviour related to the basic skill areasof reading, writing, listening, conversation andpronunciation did appear to change longitudinally,especially in reading. Native speakers of English otherthan instructors, however, did not appear to be majorlearning resources, except in the passive sense of beingmodels for the improvement of listening and pronunciationskills. This may indicate that patterns of socializationwere not restructured by the subjects to any large degree.Another such indication lies in the observation that ahierarchical structure common to the Japanese groupappeared to be prevalent within in-class group discussionsessions. Among the advanced speakers, an awareness ofthe limitations upon linguistic growth imposed by thishierarchical structure appeared to develop over time. Thedegree to which this awareness served as a basis for thedevelopment of new strategies of communication within the107group context could not be determined. The novicelearners, however, appeared to be more comfortable withthe hierarchical system of the group; there is no evidenceto indicate that they had considered strategies for changewithin the group context.For the Case A subjects, the focus of developmentappeared to lie predominantly in an awareness of thenecessity to move away from group structures to someextent, and to pursue goals related to linguistic growthin a more independent and aggressive manner. The Case Bsubjects, on the other hand, appeared to focus linguisticgrowth on resources primarily found within the groupstructure itself, presumably in order to build uponlinguistic knowledge within a secure environment. While itis difficult to compare the speed with which thesedevelopmental goals unfolded, due to the differing natureof the goals themselves, it should be noted that each ofthe four subjects did not articulate these goals to anysignificant degree until the final round of interviews inJanuary.Following from these findings, Chapter 5 willsummarize the study, present its limitations, and discussimplications for pedagogy and future research.108CHAPTER 5:SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONSummaryThis study was carried out in order to explore thenature of restructuring among a homogeneous group ofsecond language learners. From a psycholinguisticperspective, it analyzed the use of performance featuresin the verbal output of advanced and novice speakers ofEnglish in an attempt to expand upon the notion that thesefeatures of linguistic output provide a window into theprocedures of the restructuring of linguistic knowledge.From a sociolinguistic perspective, it undertook todocument the use of classroom learning strategies over afour-month period; in addition, it attempted to observedynamics of communication within the context of small,culturally homogeneous groups of language learners. Here,the hope was that the subjects' procedural knowledge ofstrategic and social behaviour would be at least partiallyavailable through observation and the introspectivereports of the subjects themselves. It was argued thatinformation gained through these methodological approacheswould, when examined longitudinally, yield insight intothe subjects' abilities to automatize and restructurestrategic and social behaviour in such a manner as to aidin the acquisition of second language skills in a foreignlearning environment.109What emerged from the interviews and observations ofgroup work were case studies of two groups of learnerswith individual styles of acquisition and learningstrategies, but whose educational and cultural backgroundsimposed similar constraints on the learning process as itrelated to interaction with native speakers and in-classgroup work.Limitations of the StudyThis research was carried out specifically to studysecond language learning within a population of Japaneseuniversity students studying in a foreign environment. Theresults of the study cannot, therefore, be generalized topopulations of second language learners havingcharacteristics other than those outlined above. A similarresearch approach, however, could be taken with otherculturally homogeneous groups of second language learners,provided that variability in age and educationalbackground was controlled.Implications for Educational PracticeThis study was conducted to inquire into the natureof the restructuring process; however, the implications ofthis process for pedagogical practice should not bedisregarded. Several implications for the teaching ofEnglish as a second language among Japanese learners canbe cautiously put forward here.First, the study found that Japanese students appear110to impose a hierarchical structure on group work. Whiletechnically not limiting the input into the group of anyof its members, this structure appears to define rolesthat can become entrenched within groups that remaintogether over several sessions. Instructors mighttherefore want to change the membership of groupsperiodically to stimulate the formation of newrelationships and foster different patterns ofcommunication and thought.Second, it was found that for the Case B subjectsparticularly, learning English from peers seemed tobecome, over time at least, preferred even over thepossibility of having native speakers as interlocutors.Another finding, however, was that qualitative andquantitative differences appear to exist between learners'oral output in group sessions with their peers and ininteractions with native speakers. While this finding mustbe interpreted with caution, it does appear that the typeof language used by the four subjects while in groupsessions was often less syntactically and lexicallycomplex than their output in the retrospective interviews.An implication for the design of task-based syllabi in thesecond language classroom is that learning tasks need tobe prepared and implemented in such a way as to promote arelatively equal distribution of participants' rights tospeak, whether this entails NS-NNS or NNS-NNS interaction.111This would help to enable learners of all proficiencylevels to maximize language acquisition in the classroom.Third, the study found change in the use of somelearning strategies over time. The question of whetherstudents should be taught learning strategies is acontentious one. Studies such as that conducted byO'Malley et al. (1985b) have found the formal teaching oflearning strategies to be beneficial.One wonders, however, what student impressions of thegoals of such teaching actually are, especially if theconnection between what is being taught and how it willsimplify the tasks confronting the learner may be tenuousat best. For the subjects of this study, however,strategies for effective reading for academic purposesseem to have become of importance over the observationperiod. While the study did not document the actualteaching of reading strategies to the students of Alphaand Beta classes, it would appear that the four subjectsdeveloped and made use of such strategies, in largemeasure to meet the demands of a rigourous schedule ofwritten assignments. It would seem quite likely, then,that when introduced by instruction into this type ofacademic environment, reading strategies would be adopted,developed and practiced by many learners.Implications for SLA ResearchThis study has attempted to contribute to existing112knowledge in SLA research by examining learnerorientations to verbal output, and by exploring the natureof the restructuring of psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic,and strategic knowledge. While some tentative conclusionshave been put forward regarding these areas, the studyitself has been largely exploratory in nature. Potentialdirections for future research are outlined below.In the area of psycholinguistics as related toperformance features, the present study has raisedquestions which could be further explored by futureresearch. For example, a more detailed analysis of howspecific performance features contribute to verbal outputmight yield interesting results. Graham (cited inScarcella, 1990) found that the unfilled pause hasdifferent meanings and value in American and Japaneseculture. Future research might relate Graham's findings toa comparison of the unfilled pause in the two cultures inmuch the same way as Barnlund and his colleagues comparedJapanese and American behaviours as they related tocriticism and the giving of apologies and compliments(Barnlund & Araki, 1985; Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Nomura& Barnlund, 1983).The unfilled pause might also be analyzed by SLAresearchers in order to attempt to describe the linguisticprocesses hidden by the silence of the pause itself."Think aloud" protocols, where subjects metalinguistically113explain linguistic processes, would not easily be carriedout in studies dealing with oral or conversational output.Nonetheless, if suitable methodologies of data extractioncould be designed, studies of this sort might attempt tohave "planners" think aloud about the planning processembedded in their speech. The results of the think aloudprocess might then be compared with the verbal output of"correctors", in an attempt to find whether these twotypes of learners form discrete groups, or whetherplanners, though more silent, in effect share the samescaffolding and monitoring processes as correctors.Another implication of this project is that therestructuring of procedural knowledge related to secondlanguage acquisition is tied to a certain degree toculturally-derived dynamics of communication. As Gumperz(1990) has shown, even technically fluent speakers ofEnglish as a second language can encounter severecommunication problems with native speakers as a result ofthese cultural differences in patterns of communication.Future studies, therefore, might attempt to analyze thespecific nature of problems in communication betweennative and non-native speakers of English. Such studiesmight analyze specific lexical, syntactic, or kinesicdifferences between these groups of speakers, making useof frameworks for the analysis of speech events such asthat proposed by Hymes (1967). Longitudinal case studies114of individual learners might attempt to trace therestructuring of sociolinguistic knowledge over a longerperiod of time than was available in the present study.Finally, this study has raised the issue of groupdynamics in culturally homogeneous populations oflearners. Especially in its relation to Japanesestudents, further study of this area would seem important.Initial observation of learners in group sessions might,first of all, attempt to establish the reality of a grouphierarchy; that is, it might seek answers to thefundamental questions: 1) Do leaders exist in groupsessions and, if so, 2) what are their defining functions?Such research might then observe leaders and non-leaders for behavioural differences in turn taking andcompeting for the floor, and an analysis of the content oftheir respective utterances might be carried out. Long(1981) found that native speakers address large numbers ofquestions to non-native speakers; what discourse patternsmight be observed between group leaders and "ordinary"group members? Such research could conceivably haveimportant implications for the nature of group work withinthe second language classroom.ConclusionThe process-oriented task syllabus, with its emphasisupon group work, is undoubtedly an extremely valuablecomponent of pedagogy in ESL. What is often not considered115to any great extent by curriculum planners andinstructors, however, is the nature of the learner as heor she has been shaped by cultural and educationalexperience. Considerations of this sort would appear to bean important feature in understanding the problems thatour students have with the assignments that we have themperform. This is not to say that we necessarily need tochange the nature of classroom work. It is important torealize, however, that differences in perception may wellexist between instructors and students over the nature andgoals of classroom work, and how these goals may best berealized. In the final analysis, we will want to examinethe degree to which second language educators can expectfundamental changes to occur in their students' outlooksand orientations to education in what is, for thelearners, a novel environment with new rules.116REFERENCESAbraham, R. G. & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of twolanguage learners: A case study. In A. Wenden & J.Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning(pp. 85-102). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice/HallInternational.Andersen, R. (1989). Models, processes, principles andstrategies: Second language acquisition inside andoutside the classroom. In J. Lee & B. VanPatten (Eds.),Second language acquisition and foreign languagelearning  (pp. 45-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Anderson, J. R. (1983). Architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Ard, J., & Gass, S. M. (1987). Lexical constraints onsyntactic acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 233-252.Barnlund, D. C., & Araki, S. (1985). Interculturalencounters: The management of compliments by Japaneseand Americans. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,16(1), 9-26.Barnlund, D. C., & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies:Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193-206.Berwick, R. F. (1988). The effect of task variation inteacher-led groups on repair of English as a foreignlanguage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TheUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver.Brown, A. I. (1982). Inducing strategic learning fromtexts by means of informed, self-control training.Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Researchon teaching and learning. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Cheng, P. W. (1985). Restructuring versus automaticity:Alternative accounts of skill acquisition.Psychological Review, 92, 414-423.Clark, H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.117Cohen, A. D. (1987). Using verbal reports in research onlanguage learning. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.),Introspection in second language research (pp. 82-95).Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Cohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessinginterlanguage performance: The relationship betweenselected errors, learners' characteristics, andlearners' explanations. Language Learning, 26, 45-66.Corder, S. Pit (1983). Strategies of communication. In C.Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.) Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 15-18). New York: Longman.Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinkingin second language composing. Written Communication, 7,482-511.Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1990). Japan: TsukubaScience City. In F. Williams & D. V. Gibson (Eds.),Technology transfer: A communication perspective (pp.211-225). London: Sage.Duppenthaler, C., Viswat, L. & Onaka, N. (1989). Learningstrategies of Japanese learners of English. In V.Bickley (Ed.), Language teaching and learning styles within and across cultures (pp. 90-99). Hong Kong:Institute of Language in Education, EducationDepartment.Educational Testing Service (1982). ETS Oral ProficiencyTesting Manual. Princeton, NJ: Author.Ellis, R. (1984). Formulaic speech in early classroomsecond language development. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem& B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83: The question of control  (pp. 53-65). Washington, DC: TESOL.Ellis, R. (1985a). Sources of variability ininterlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118-131.Ellis, R. (1985b). Understanding second languageacquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports asdata. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215-51.Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.118Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983a). Introduction. In C.Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguagecommunication (pp. xv-xviv). London: Longman.Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983b). Plans and strategies inforeign language communication. In C. Faerch & G.Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20-60). London: Longman.Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983c). On identifyingcommunication strategies in interlanguage production.In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication  (pp. 210-238). London:Longman.Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process -Introspective methods in second language research. InC. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Instrospection in secondlanguage research  (pp. 5-23). Philadelphia:Multilingual Matters.Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). The pregnant pause: Aninquiry into the nature of planning. Research in theTeaching of English, 15, 229-243.Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Task variation andnonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. M.Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition  (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences inNNS/NNS interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp.327-351). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Gumperz, J. J., (1990). The conversational analysis ofinterethnic communication. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S.Andersen & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developingcommunicative competence in a second language (pp. 223-238). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and secondlanguage acquisition. In E. M. Hatch (Ed.), Secondlanguage acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401-435).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discoveringour students' strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9,117-29.119Howard, D. V. (1985). Cognitive Psychology. New York:MacMillan.Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of languageand social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 8-28.Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). Stage/structure versusphase/process in modelling linguistic and cognitivedevelopment. In I. Levin (Ed.), Stage and structure: Reopening the debate (pp. 164-190). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.Kolers, P. A., & Roediger, H. L. III (1984). Procedures ofmind. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,23, 425-449.Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and secondlanguage learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in secondlanguage acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An Introductionto second language acquisition research. London:Longman.Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching.Applied Linguistics, 6, 173-189.Long, M. H. (1981). Questions in foreigner talk discourse.Language Learning, 31, 135-157.McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second languagelearning. London: Edward Arnold.McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics,11, 113-128.Mehan, H. (1977). Ethnography. In Bilingual education: Current perspectives. Volume 1: Social sciences, pp.73-89. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Midooka, K. (1990). Characteristics of Japanese-stylecommunication. Media, Culture and Society, 12, 477-489.Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.120Morrison, D. M., & Low, G. (1983). Monitoring and secondlanguage learners. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt(Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 228-250). NewYork: Longman.Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. Los Angeles:University of California Press.Nomura, N., & Barnlund, D. C. (1983). Patterns ofinterpersonal criticism in Japan and United States.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 1-18.O'Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learningstrategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G.,Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985a). Learning strategiesused by beginning and intermediate ESL students.Language Learning, 35, 21-46.O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G.,Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L. (1985b). Learning strategyapplications with students of English as a secondlanguage. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 285-296.Politzer, R. L. & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratorystudy of learning behaviors and their relationship togains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOLQuarterly, 19, 103-123.Porter, P. A. (1986). How learners talk to each other:Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. InR. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation insecond language acquisition (pp. 200-222). Cambridge:Newbury House.Raupach, M. (1983). Analysis and evaluation ofcommunication strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper(Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp.199-209). London: Longman.Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESLstudents. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-109.Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" canteach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.121Rulon, K. A., & McCreary, J. (1986). Negotiation ofcontent: Teacher-fronted and small-group interaction.In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation insecond language acquisition (pp. 182-199). Cambridge:Newbury House.Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion,tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. InJ. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factorsin cognition (pp. 37-53). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in secondlanguage learning for academic achievement? TESOLQuarterly, 18, 199-219.Scarcella, R. C. (1990). Communication difficulties insecond language production, development, andinstruction. In R. C. Scarcella, E. D. Anderson, & S.D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competencein a second language  (pp. 337-353). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.Schachter, J. (1986). In search of systematicity ininterlanguage production. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 8, 119-134.Schmidt, M. F. (1981). Needs assessment in English forspecific purposes: The case study. In L. Selinker, E.Tarone, & V. Hanzeli (Eds.), English for academic andtechnical purposes: Studies in honor of Louis Trimble (pp. 199-210). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Schmidt, R. W. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and theacquisition of communicative competence: A case studyof an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.),Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Schmidt, R. W. (1990). Consciousness in second languagelearning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basicconversational ability in a second language: A casestudy of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day(Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.122Seliger, H. W. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A studyof interaction patterns and second language competence.Language Learning, 27, 263-278.Seliger, H. W. (1979). On the nature and function oflanguage rules in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,13, 359-369.Seliger, H. W. (1980). Utterance planning and correctionbehavior: Its function in the grammar constructionprocess for second language learners. In H. W. Dechert& M. Raupach (Eds.), Towards a cross-linguistic assessment of speech production (pp. 87-99). Frankfurt:Lang.Seliger, H. W. (1983). The language learner as linguist:Of metaphors and realities. Applied Linguistics, 4,179-191.Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and thesecond language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.Shimahara, N. K. (1979). Adaptation and education inJapan. New York: Praeger.Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles ofcomprehensible input and comprehensible output in itsdevelopment. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Inputin second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley,MA: Newbury House.Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreignertalk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning,30, 417-431.Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion ofcommunication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 285-294.Tarone, E. Cohen, A. D., & Dumas, G. (1983). A closerlook at some interlanguage terminology: A framework forcommunication strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper(Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp.4-14). London: Longman.123Tobin, J., & Davidson, D. (1990). The ethics of polyvocalethnography: Empowering vs. textualizing children andteachers. The International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 271-283.Watson-Gegeo, K. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining theessentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 575-592.White, P. (1980). Limitations on verbal reports ofinternal events. Psychological Review, 87, 105-112.Willing, K. (1987). Learning strategies as informationmanagement. Prospect, 2, 273-291.Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Writing and the teaching ofreading. Language Arts, 60, 600-606.Wittrock, M. C., Marks, C. B., & Doctorow, M. J. (1975).Reading as a generative process. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 67, 484-489.Wode, H., Bahns, J., Bedley, H., & Frank, W. (1978).Developmental sequences: An alternative approach tomorpheme orders. Language Learning, 28, 175-185.Wong-Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in secondlanguage acquisition. In C. J. Fillmore, W-S. Y. Wang,& D. Kempler (Eds.), Individual differences in languageability and language behaviour (pp. 203-228). New York:Academic Press.Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work asinput? In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 17-50). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.124APPENDICES (A-G)Note. In Appendices F and G, this study is referred to as"A Case Study in the Phenomenology of Learning Among AdultESL Students." This title reflects an early conception ofthe nature of the study. After a more thorough interactionwith the data, however, it became apparent that therestructuring of linguistic knowledge would be theparamount theme dealt with. The title was thereforechanged to reflect this theme more closely.125Appendix AThe Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) This testing procedure is a structured, one-on-oneconversation between the examinee and a trained nativespeaker of the test language. The interview, while quiteinformal in tone, is designed to measure the examinee'srange of abilities in the test language. Interviews beginwith a test of general conversational abilities. Theinterviewer then initiates a "probe", a question designedto test the upper limit of the examinee's abilities. Anaccompanying grading scale places examinee's oralproficiency at one ofthe following levels:00+ 	 - Novice: High1 	 - Intermediate: Low1+ 	 - Intermediate: High2 	 - Advanced2+	 - Advanced: Plus3 and higher - SuperiorThe subjects in this study were classified at the 0+,2 and 2+ levels. These levels have been described asfollows:Level 0+ : Able to satisfy immediate needs using learnedutterances. There is no real autonomy ofexpression, although there may be some emergingsigns of spontaneity and flexibility. There isa slight increase in utterance length butfrequent long pauses and repetition ofinterlocutor's words126still occur. Can ask questions or makestatements with reasonable accuracy only wherethis involves short memorized utterances orformulae. Most utterances are telegraphic andword endings (both inflectional and non-inflectional) are often omitted, confused ordistorted. Vocabulary is limited to areas ofimmediate survival needs. Can differentiatemost phonemes when produced in isolation butwhen they are combined in words or groups ofwords, errors are frequent and, even withrepetition, may severely inhibit communicationeven with persons used to dealing with suchlearners. Little development in stress andintonation is evident.Level 2 : Able to satisfy routine social demands andlimited work requirements. Can handle withconfidence but not with facility most socialsituations including introductions and casualconversations about current events, as well aswork, family, and autobiographical information;can handle limited work requirements, needinghelp in handling any complications ordifficulties. (Can get the gist of mostconversations on non-technical subjects [i.e.,topics which require no specializedknowledge.]) Can give directions from one placeto another. Has a speaking vocabularysufficient to respond simply with somecircumlocutions; accent, though often quitefaulty, is intelligible; can usually handleelementary constructions quite accurately butdoes not have thorough or confident control ofthe grammar.Level 2+ : Able to satisfy most work requirements and showsome ability to communicate on concrete topics relating to particular interests and special fields of competence. Often shows remarkablefluency and ease of speech but under tension orpressure language may break down. Generallystrong in either grammar or vocabulary but notin both. Weaknesses or unevenness in one ofthe foregoing or in pronunciation result inoccasional miscommunication. Areas of weaknessrange from simple constructions such asplurals, articles, prepositions, and negativesto more complex structures such as tense usage,passive constructions, word order, and relativeclauses. Normally controls general vocabulary127with some groping for everyday vocabulary stillevident.Source: Educational Testing Service, 1982128Appendix BInterview Protocol used to Assess Participants' BackgroundI. Language Background. 1. Where were you born?2. Where did you spend your childhood?3. What languages were spoken in your home?4. What do you regard as your native language?5. Were other languages spoken in your neighbourhood?6. Which was the first foreign language you learned?7. When did you start this language and how long did youstudy it?8. How long have you studied English?9. Which other languages have you studied or tried tostudy?10. Are you satisfied with your achievement in [thedifferent languages] or would you like to learn more?11. Regarding English:a. What did you mainly study (e.g. conversation)?b. Can you describe the textbooks you used?c. How often did your teacher speak English?d. Did you have to speak a lot yourself or did youmainly read and translate?e. Try to explain the kind of homework you had to do.f. Do you remember what was the most difficult for youwhen you studied English?g. Did you often have small group activities in theclassroom?h. Did you have any contact outside the classroom withspeakers of English?129i. How often did you have the chance to listen to theradio or see films in English in class or outside?12. Some people say they have a talent for studyinglanguages, others say they haven't. Would you regardyourself as strong, weak, or medium in learninglanguages?13. Do you like to take the language apart and analyze it?(Do you like to figure out the language by yourself orwould you rather have the teacher tell you the rules?)II. Present Living Conditions1. How do you feel about living in the Totem ParkResidence?2. Do you speak much English at home in Totem Park?3. For what other activities do you use English outside ofyour studies? E.g., movies, shopping, reading forpleasure, talking with friends, etc.III. Student Goals/perceptions of study in Canada 1. Why did you decide to study in Canada?2. What are your plans after you complete this program?3. Compared to language classes in Japan, do you regardclasses at UBC as formal or informal? Explain what youmean. Do you feel comfortable in this environment?4. What language skill do you think your teachersemphasize the most? E.g., Is listening comprehensionemphasized more than conversation?5. What would you like to accomplish during your studiesin Canada?6. What classroom activities do you like best at UBC? Giveexamples. Which do you like least?7. If you could change one classroom activity in order tomake learning English easier or more interesting foryou, what would it be?8. What aspects of English are easy or difficult for you?Why?130IV. Students' Insights into the Language Learning Process1. Do you think you have any special abilities which helpyou in learning English? If so, what are they? do youthink you lack certain abilities which would help yoube a better learner of English? In other words, whatabilities do you wish you had?2. Have you developed any special techniques or studyhabits which help you learn English?3. What grammatical parts of English are most difficultfor you? Which parts are easiest?4. Do you have any idea why this/these parts of Englishare easy or difficult for you?5. When you learn new grammar points would you like to begiven a rule in English, in Japanese, or no rule at all(just examples)?6. When the teacher introduces a new word, do you learnbetter when you see it written down or when you hearit?7. When the teacher introduces a new word, would youprefer a translation of the word into Japanese or anexplanation of the meaning in English?8. In speaking, if you don't know a word or expression inEnglish, do you find other words in English to expressyour idea, say the word or idea in Japanese, look upthe word in a bilingual dictionary, or just forgetabout trying to express your idea? In writing...?9. Do you participate often in class? Why or why not? Doyou mind if the teacher asks you questions when youdon't have your hand up? Do you like participating insmall group discussions and activities? Why or why not?10. When you don't understand something in class, what areyou more likely to do? (a) Ask the teacher for help orclarification; (b) Ask another student for help; (c)Try to find help from a textbook or dictionary; or (d)Not worry about the problem at all.11. Do you mind being corrected? Are there certaincircumstances when you prefer not to have your Englishcorrected?12. What do you do when you are corrected? (Do you repeat131the correction?)13. Do you correct other students when they make an error?Do you do it silently or aloud?14. Many language learners feel negative about theirlearning experiences. They say they feel (a)discouraged, (b) frustrated, (c) impatient, or (d)confused by the difficulties of the learning task.Have you experienced any of these feelings?15. Other language learners say that the new languagefeels (e) funny or crazy to them and that they feel(f) ridiculous expressing themselves in the language.Do you ever feel this way about English?16. Some people feel very (g) shy and (h) helpless whenthey actually use the language. Is this experiencefamiliar to you when you use English?17. If you had some of these feelings in the past, but nolonger have them, what did you do to overcome thesefeelings?V. So far we have talked about what you'd like to learnand how you would go about doing it. Considering all this,would you say that you have developed any language studyhabits, techniques, or strategies that you would finduseful in learning the new language?1. In learning the sound system, e.g., reading aloud toyourself, repeating words silently to yourself afterthe teacher, etc.2. In learning the grammar, e.g., making guesses aboutregularities and rules and then applying them, etc.3. In learning vocabulary, e.g., by constant repetition,by finding relations between words, writing words down,etc.4. In developing listening comprehension, e.g., bylistening to records, to the radio, etc.5. In conversation, e.g., through contact with nativespeakers, by insisting on constant correction of yourerrors, etc.6. In developing reading comprehension, e.g., by readingpopular magazines or books.1327. In learning how to express yourself in written form,e.g., by writing to penpals.(adapted from ABRAHAM and Vann [1987]).133Appendix CCourse Outline: ENED 379 - Intercultural Communication inSecond Language EducationDescriptionThis course will introduce second language learnersto essential concepts of inter-cultural communication andapproaches to learning language in a multi-culturalsociety. The course consists of one lecture and three 90-minute seminars per week, focussing on individualimprovement in self-instruction, self-sufficiency inlearning and effective participation in academicactivities. One 45-minute period per week is available forstudy in the media resource laboratory.Section size is 20 students. All students in theprogramme participate in the weekly lectures, presented onMonday mornings by faculty members and invited guestspeakers. Follow-up seminars incorporate the lecturecontent with other content of interest to the sectionmembers. Experiential components of the course mayinclude simulations, contact assignments in university andmetropolitan settings, and workshops organized at centresin Vancouver's ethnic communities.GENERAL OBJECTIVESUpon successful completion of this course, students willbe able to:1341. Systematically improve listening comprehensionand note-taking skills in the context of academiclectures and seminars,2. Identify and correct errors that appearconsistently in their spoken English;3. Describe the content of an academic lecture,research findings, principles, etc. using keyvisuals and knowledge representation principles(Mohan, 1986);4. Prepare and deliver a variety of short(approximately 10 minutes) oral presentations; and,5. Participate effectively in a variety of academicgroup activities.(SOURCE: Course Outline, ENED 379. Used with theconsent of the UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic ExchangeProgramme.)135Appendix DDistribution of Performance Features (PF) by Interview andGroup Session (Number/percent) Table D-1Atsuko: PF Distribution by Ouestionnaire and InterviewQuestionnaire/Interview	PF Questionnaire Int. 1	 Int. 3 	 Int. 4 	 TOT(Oct. 6) 	 (Nov. 5) 	 (Nov. 19)	 (Jan. 16)1 	 26 / 15 	 33 / 20 	 39 / 23 	 53 / 21 	 151/ 202 	 14 / 7 	 7 / 4 	 14 / 8 	 18 / 7 	 53/ 73 	 48 / 27 	 42 / 26 	 30 / 17 	 43 / 17 	 163/ 214 	 41 / 23 	 33 / 20 	 51 / 30 	 54 / 21	179/ 235 	 15 / 8 	 14 / 9 	 5 / 3	 21 / 8 	 55/ 76 	 36 / 20 	 33 / 20 	 33 / 19 	 66 / 26 	 168/ 22TOT 	 180 /100 	 162 /100 	 172 /100 	 255 /100 	 769/100table continues136Table D-1 (cont'd)Atsuko: PF Distribution by Group SessionGroup SessionPF 	 Group 1 	 Group 3 	 Group 4 	 TOT(Nov. 5) 	 (Nov. 19) 	 (Jan. 16)1 	 14 / 47 	 5 / 15 	 4 / 14 	 23/ 242 	 1/ 3 	 1/ 3 	 - 	 4/ 43 	 4 / 13 	 3 / 9 	 7 / 24 	 14/ 154 	 6 / 20 	 10 / 30 	 3 / 10 	 19/ 205 	 1/ 3 	 3/ 9 	 6 / 21 	 10/ 116 	 4 / 13 	 11 / 33 	 9 / 31 	 24/ 26TOT 	 30 /100 	 33 /100 	 29 /100 	 94/100137Table D-2Kenji: PF Distribution by Questionnaire and InterviewQuestionnaire/InterviewPF Questionnaire Int. 1 	 Int. 3 	 Int. 4 	 TOT(Oct. 7) 	 (Nov. 5) 	 (Nov. 19) 	 (Jan. 28)1 	 12 / 5 	 5 / 4 	 4 / 3 	 6 / 6 	 27/ 52 	 10 / 5 	 3 / 3 	 - 	 4 / 4 	 17/ 33 	 36 / 17	 21 / 19 	 9 / 7 	 10 / 10 	 76/144 	 56 / 26 	 18 / 16 	 29 / 24 	 20 / 20 	 123/225 	 87 / 41	 43 / 38 	 50 / 41 	 37 / 36 	 217/396 	 13 / 6 	 22 / 20 	 31 / 25 	 25 / 24 	 91/17TOT 	 214 /100 	 112 /100 	 123 /100 	 102 /100 	 551/100table continues138Table D-2 (cont'd)Kenji: PF Distribution by Group SessionGroup SessionPF Group 1(Nov.	 5)Group 3(Nov. 	 19)Group 4(Jan. 	 16)TOT1 - - 1 / 25 1/112 - - - -3 - - - -4 - - - -5 - - 2 / 50 2/226 4 /100 1 /100 1 / 25 6/66TOT 4 /100 1 /100 4 /100 9/100139Table D-3Midori: PF Distribution by Questionnaire and InterviewQuestionnaire/InterviewPF Questionnaire Int. 1 	 Int. 3 	 Int. 4 	 TOT(Oct. 17) 	 (Oct. 31) (Nov. 14) 	 (Jan. 31)1 	 4 / 5 	 7 / 10 	 9 / 10 	 15 / 11 	 35/102 	 6/ 8 	 4 / 6 	 6/ 7	13 / 9 	 29/ 83 	 7 / 9 	 6 / 9 	 16 / 19 	 18 / 13 	 47/134 	 42 / 56 	 38 / 56 	 45 / 52	 60 / 43 	 185/505 	 14 / 19	13 / 19 	 9 / 10 	 20 / 14	56/156 	 2 / 3	- 	 1 / 1	 12 / 9 	 15/ 4TOT 	 75 /100	 68 /100 	 86 /100 	 138 /100	 367/100table continues140Table D-3 (cont'd)Midori: PF Distribution by Group SessionGroup SessionPF Group(Oct.131)Group(Nov.3 	 Group7) 	 (Jan.4 	 TOT23)1 - - - -2 6 / 26 4 / 17 	 - 10/223 4 / 17 3 / 13 	 - 7/154 8 / 35 6 / 26 	 - 14/305 2 / 9 3 / 13 	 - 5/116 3 / 13 7 / 30 	 - 10/22TOT 23 /100 23 /100 	 - 46/100141Table D-4Ryuzo: PF Distribution by Questionnaire and InterviewQuestionnaire/InterviewPF Questionnaire Int. 1	 Int. 3 	 Int. 4 	 TOT(Oct. 17) 	 (Oct. 31) (Nov. 14) 	 (Jan. 28)1 	 8 / 2 	 4 / 4	 14 / 6 	 27 / 	 8 	 53/ 52 	 10 / 3 	 3 / 3 	 15 / 7	 16 / 	 5 	 44/ 43 	 81 / 23	 26 / 24 	 54 / 25 	 52 / 16 	 213/ 214 	 190 / 55 	 57 / 53 	 114 / 52 	 162 / 49 	 523/ 525 	 29 / 9 	 16 / 15 	 10 / 5 	 28 / 	 8 	 83/ 86 	 27 / 8 	 1 / 1	 11 / 5 	 46 / 14	 85/ 9TOT 	 345 /100 	 107 /100	 218 /100 	 331 /100 	 1001/100table continues142Table D-4 (cont'd)Ryuzo: PF Distribution by Group SessionGroup SessionPF Group 1(Oct. 	 31)Group 3(Nov. 	 14)Group 4(Jan. 	 23)TOT1 1/ 	 7 3/ 	 4 1/ 	 6 5/ 52 1/ 	 7 - 3 / 19 4/ 43 4 / 26 13 / 19 3 / 19 20/204 7 / 46 28 / 42 5 / 31 40/415 1/ 	 7 11 / 16 1/ 	 6 13/136 1 / 	 7 12 / 18 3 / 19 16/16TOT 15 /100 67 /100 16 /100 98/100Note.Performance Features are coded as follows:1. False start2. New start3. Repeat4. Filled Pause5. Unfilled pause6. Comprehension check143Appendix ESample of Coded Transcripts The samples given below are excerpts from the codedtranscripts of the four subjects. Coding follows theformat given Table E.Table ECoding Format Performance Feature CodeFalse start 1New start 2Repeat 3Filled Pause 4Unfilled Pause 5Comprehension Check 6In these samples, uppercase print is used todesignate the interviewer's statements and questions. Thesymbol > indicates comprehension checks, while [n]indicates the length, in seconds, of unfilled pauses.Indentations indicate turns taken within a longerexchange. These turns are generally confirmations oragreements, but may also take the form of interruptions. A144series of filled pauses (e.g., "um, uh, uh") is coded onceonly. The symbol Q indicates the interviewer's questionsand comments.1) Atsuko: November 19, 1991.6 4 	But as for today, the group activity> - I, uhh,1 1 	I have, I don't have interest in this sentence and	  this group activity, so-YEAH, OK. QUITE A LONG SILENCE THERE WHILE EVERYONEIS THINKING MAYBE HOW TO, TO START SAYINGSOMETHING.	  Yeah.UM, DO YOU THINK THAT THE OTHER GROUP MEMBERS ALSOWERE NOT PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THIS TOPIC?No, I don't think so because, ahh, for example thegroup behind us is talking about the second uh,question> --YEAH.-I think , I, they, uh, one of themembers represented the answer in front of us> andwhen I hear, heard that answer> I thought that thatgroup enjoyed talking about it, because, becausetheir answers are very interesting for me.-UM HUM.-So, and, uh, and the answer, uhuh, the that answer th-interested me very much.-UH HUH.-But, uh, as, on the contrary, uhthe answer of this question> - question 1 isgeneral not so interesting, general answers> --UM HUM.-Because we ha-uh we have, wecannot generate a lot of ideas about this4461 1 4 261 634 41 14 1 4663 4 11456 question> --YEAH.4 1 -So, uh, uh, so, so, uh we, I think1 1 4 2 we, I think we don't , we, uh, I think the member4 1 of our group is uh, did not satisfy this4 answer, so - yeah.-OK.2) Kenji: November 5, 1991.Maybe my explanation to this question to other3 people is not, not good enough. Not enough toconvey other students.YEAH. WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU SAY TO OTHER PEOPLE?4 5 6 3 Um [3] 	 [laughs] the last part> last part she [the6 4 6 6 teacher]> um, ask the other people> the question>-YEAH.6 -and M, one of the students> sheasked her this question, she answered the question,uh, 	 just 	 'yes'	 [laughter].4 SO SHE WAS TALKING WITH YOU, HUH?-Yeah. [laughter]OK, BUT YOU DIDN'T, DID YOU GIVE A FURTHEREXPLANATION AT ALL, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING WITH THEOTHER PEOPLE, OR DID YOU SIMPLY SAY 'YES, I CANUNDERSTAND THE TWO SENTENCES'?4 6 	Uh, Yeah. I tried to explain> this question, but it	  is not simple for me to explain to other people. Of1 	Of cour-because I cannot understand, I cannot find6 5 5 	the answer> so that's why [3] just [3] I said my5 3 	opinion to other people. [3] I, I cannot find the3 	answer, then, I asked the other people. 'How how	 about your opinion about this question?'RIGHT. OK. AND OF COURSE TIME WAS VERY IMPORTANT,TOO. YOU DIDN'T HAVE VERY MUCH TIME TO WORK WITH.OK. UH, A COUPLE OF GENERAL QUESTIONS NOW. NOTNECESSARILY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR LESSON. ALTHOUGHI SHOULD ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THISLESSON. DID YOU FIND THIS TO BE A HELPFUL LESSON?146WAS IT GOOD PRACTICE FOR YOU?5 4 5 1 3 [3] Um [5] I think, I thought, I thought, I	  thought this was one of the curriculum, so as for	  me this is not so special topic or special	  assignment to me.-YEAH. Ok.WAS IT HELPFUL FOR YOU TO WORK ON CONVERSATIONALSKILLS, OR LISTENING SKILLS, OR READING SKILLS?5 1 	[5] I, attending this class it's helped me to4 5 4 	improve my listening ability or, um, [4] um, I6 	think that discussion to other people> is very	  useful to improve my speaking ability, and5 4 	[3], um-[INTERVIEWER INTERVENTION]Midori: November 14, 1991.4 4 	Uh, for me and other members, uh, what this means	  'in terms of ownership of the land', it is hard to	  understand.-UH HUH.-So we, are discussing if it's	  difficult or not.YEAH. OK. DO YOU REMEMBER, YOU EACH LOOKED AT THISPART OF THE QUESTION, AND YOU DECIDED IT WASDIFFICULT, SO WHAT DID YOU DISCUSS TO TRY TOUNDERSTAND?4 5 4 Um [3] I tried to explain, um, my thinking, but it4 2 is, um, I can't myself understood other members.DID YOU ALL AGREE ON THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD'TREATY'? 	 WAS THAT DIFFICULT FOR YOU ALL TO AGREEON?4 4 Uh, maybe in lecture, 	 'treaty' is uh, different,4 1 uh, 	 'treaty' is difficult to, difficult meanings.-Um hum.4 1 -Um, we know, usual- we know usual4 usage of 'treaty', um, but, his lecture is -2 'treaty' has difficult meanings, I think.147OK. SO IN THAT CASE, WHERE THE MEANING OF THE WORD'TREATY' SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE NORMALMEANING OR THE MEANING IN THE DICTIONARY --Um hum.-what did you try to do tounderstand the meaning of 'treaty'?4 4 3 	Uh, at first, uh, we we looked into dictionary,	  and looked into our notebook about his lecture, and4 5 4 3 4 uh, [3] Z [the teacher] um, Z um, Z around other1 	mem-other students, so I heard her words, or-YEAH. SO YOU WERE LISTENING ALSO FOR WHAT THETEACHER WAS SAYING AS WELL.-Yes. Yes.OK. UH, WHEN YOU JUST SAID THAT TO HIM, YOU SAID,"WHY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AREN'T THERE ANYTREATIES?". 	 YEAH?	 UH, WERE YOU TRYING TOPARAPHRASE THIS QUESTION FOR HIM--TRYING TO GIVETHE MEANING OF THIS QUESTION FOR HIM? "CAN YOUEXPLAIN WHAT THIS MEANS IN TERMS OF OWNERSHIP OFTHE LAND?"Sorry, I can't understand.4) Ryuzo: January 28, 1991.4 5 4 4 5 Um [3] so, um, that discussion is, um [3] so3 5 3 4 so great for for us, because [3] that discussion uh3 4 5 3 4 so, that discussion, uh [3] make , make clear uh,3 um, our our information about Canada and Japan, no,3 2 6 no, US> --YEAH.3 -so, we can , that discussion, make,4 5 4 1 make easily, to, uh [3] uh, make easy to make6 questions> --YEAH.-I think.SO THE DISCUSSION WAS AN IMPORTANT INTRODUCTION TOTHE QUESTIONS?148-Yeah.-OK.DID YOU FINALLY WRITE THREE QUESTIONS IN YOURGROUP?-That time?-UM HUM.5 3 	-[3] Yeah, I, I, I remember I made three	  questions--UM HUM.6		-But I didn't ask that questions> --UH HUH.4 4 1 	-so that person, uh, he say, uh, Heask other questions.-DIFFERENT QUESTIONS?-Yeah, different questions[laughter].-OH OK.WHAT POINT WERE YOU MAKING ABOUT THE HOMESTAY?4 1 1 4 1 At that time, I said uh, uh, I, when, uh, I,4 2 4 6 uh, in December, uh, middle of December> --UM HUM.4 2 6 -I went San Franc- uh Berkeley> -6 near San Francisco>--YEAH.3 6 -to, to this homestay> --YEAH.4 4 3 3 -So, uh, when, uh, when I did I did6 4 1 6 homestay> my host, uh, my host family> said about4 4 Can-uh I talked about Canada and a bit, um6 6 difference> about Canada and US> -149-UM HUM.4 4 	-uh, with host family, uh, so at4 3 4 	that time, uh, host family said, Canada, Canada, uh3 4 	Canada, is too cold, and only Quebec area, um,1 3 1 4 3 Quebec, only Quebec area, in , uh only Quebec area,4 3 6 	uh French, French is spoken> -150Appendix FLetter of Initial Contact and Subject Consent FormSeptember, 1991.Dear Student:I am a teaching assistant with the UBC/RitsumeikanAcademic Exchange Program and a graduate student in theDepartment of Language Education at the University ofBritish Columbia. I am writing to ask you if you would beinterested in participating in a research project called"A Case Study in the Phenomenology of Learning among AdultESL Students." If you agree to participate, you will beasked some questions about your previous experiences inlearning foreign languages, your reasons for studyingEnglish, and the types of strategies you use in learningEnglish. It will take about one hour to complete thesequestions. As well, two or three video tapes will be madeof your participation in a small group activity in yourclass. You will be asked to observe the video tape, atwhich time I will ask you questions about yourparticipation in the small group activity. Please do notbe concerned if you feel you cannot answer the interviewquestions in English, because a Japanese translator willbe available. In all, you will spend about 4-5 hours onall of the above activities. In return for your time, Iwill offer tutorial time or conversation practice on anongoing basis during the three-month research period.The purpose of this study is to learn more about howyou study English--your likes and dislikes, and thestrategies you use in learning. The research is notconnected to your courses or grades with the RitsumeikanProject. The names of participants in this researchproject will be strictly confidential. Pseudonyms will beused for all participants. If you decide to participatein the project, you will be free to drop out of it at anytime.151If you require further information about thisproject, please telephone me at 322-6171 (home), or 822-8190 (office). If you decide to participate in theproject, please complete the attached consent form andreturn it to me. I will contact you to arrange a timeduring which we can meet to discuss the research further.Thank you for your interest.Yours sincerely,Ron Fazio152Consent Form:Dear Ron:I have received your letter of September, 1991, in whichyou explain the research project you are undertaking. Iunderstand that I can refuse to participate if I sodesire. If I agree to participate, you will be availablefor tutorials or conversation practice during the timethat I participate in the research project. I will be ableto withdraw without penalty from this project at any time,should I choose to do so. I also understand that myparticipation in this project will remain completelyconfidential. Finally, I acknowledge that I have seen acopy of this consent form with all attachments, and that Ihave kept your letter for future reference.I AGREE / DO NOT AGREE to participate in your project.Name:Signature:Date:153APPENDIX GLETTER OF CONSENTUBC Behavioural SciencesScreening CommitteeOffice of Research ServicesRoom 323, IRC BuildingUniversity of British ColumbiaAugust 27, 1991.Dear Committee Members,Ronald Fazio, a graduate student in the Department ofLanguage Education, UBC, has informed me of his intention tocarry out a research project entitled "A Case Study in thePhenomenology of Learning among Adult ESL Students". In thisproject, Mr. Fazio wishes to document the responses of fourstudents towards the learning syllabus that they receive. Healso intends to analyze the types of learning strategies thatthese students utilize in the language classroom.Mr. Fazio has also informed me that, for the purpose ofconducting his research, he wishes to select four studentsenrolled in the "UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Program".He has assured me that the participants in his researchproject will be selected on a purely voluntary basis, andthat they may withdraw without penalty from the project atany time. I also understand that the anonymity of theseparticipants will be strictly maintained.Given the above conditions, I wish to inform you that I fullyendorse Mr. Fazio's research project, and find no objectionsto his use of students from the "UBC-Ritsumeikan AcademicExchange Program" as project participants.Yours sincerely,Oto OkugawaVisiting ProfessorRitsumeikan University154APPENDIX GLETTER OF CONSENTUBC Behavioural SciencesScreening CommitteeOffice of Research ServicesRoom 323, IRC BuildingUniversity of British ColumbiaAugust 27, 1991.Dear Committee Members,Ronald Fazio, a graduate student in the Department ofLanguage Education, UBC, has informed me of his intention tocarry out a research project entitled "A Case Study in thePhenomenology of Learning among Adult ESL Students". In thisproject, Mr. Fazio wishes to document the responses of fourstudents towards the learning syllabus that they receive. Healso intends to analyze the types of learning strategies thatthese students utilize in the language classroom.Mr. Fazio has also informed me that, for the purpose ofconducting his research, he wishes to select four studentsenrolled in the "UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Program".He has assured me that the participants in his researchproject will be selected on a purely voluntary basis, andthat they may withdraw without penalty from the project atany time. I also understand that the anonymity of theseparticipants will be strictly maintained.Given the above conditions, I wish to inform you that I fullyendorse Mr. Fazio's research project, and find no objectionsto his use of students from the "UBC-Ritsumeikan AcademicExchange Program" as project participants.Yours sincerely,154

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078111/manifest

Comment

Related Items