Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Eliciting the language of decision making through collaborative revision of compositions Poliakoff, Nan Karen 1990

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1990_A8 P64.pdf [ 5.98MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078369.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078369+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078369.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078369+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078369+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078369+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078369 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078369.txt
Citation
1.0078369.ris

Full Text

ELICITING T H E LANGUAGE OF DECISION MAKING THROUGH COLLABORATIVE REVISION OF COMPOSITIONS  by NAN KAREN POLIAKOFF B.A., University of British Columbia, 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Language Education  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1990 © Nan Karen Poliakoff, 1990  •a  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  study.  scholarly  or for  her  of I  I further  purposes  gain  shall  of  DE-6  (2/88)  be  It not  LjQ^qVdZqe, SAoc&^iot~\  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  that  agree  permission.  Department  requirements  agree  may  representatives.  financial  the  that  the  be  Library  an  advanced  shall  permission for  granted  is  for  by  understood allowed  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  copying my  my or  written  ii  ABSTRACT  Written undergone and  a major  end-product  meaning. on  process  a  in  pedagogy  have  focus  form  the process  of  without that  The  tool  interactive  were  found  goal  value  of  develop  discourse. may  somewhat  to  decision-making.  o f compositions writing,  stimulating  f o r generating the  has been  i t s potential  used as a  has n o t p r e v i o u s l y been e x p l o r e d . examines c o l l a b o r a t i v e  for eliciting  ANOVA,  t o be  oral  Eight  revision of  decision-making  adult  ESL  students  composition-related tasks  "constructed  measures  to  pre-constructed,  linked  i n two c o l l a b o r a t i v e  repeated  activities  their  i n t h e ESL classroom.  participated two  as a  are  i n the classroom  the limited  during  activity  specific  i n c l u d e d i n a d u l t ESL c l a s s e s a r e  revision  c u r r e n t study  compositions  the  i s cognitively  language l e a r n i n g  creating  a reliance  that  expository  activities  verifying  a i d decision-making  learners  written  but  toward  collaborative  language  and  demands,  directed  more t a l k , language  oral  and  on  demands must b e made w i t h i n  language  tasks t y p i c a l l y  generally  Using  on  insufficient,  decision-making  such  artificial  and  language  the t r a d i t i o n a l  focus  is  i f second  Interactive  to  from  and k n o w l e d g e - r e l a t e d  proficiency  While  to  alone  process  present  shift  second  However, r e c e n t r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t  linguistic a  and o r a l  decision"  the  at least  activities.  composition  related  as e f f e c t i v e  as t h e  iii  constructed making  language  making  context  activities  for  a s m e a s u r e d by f i v e  moves.  indicated  and  decision  Qualitative  that  the  f o r conscious  eliciting  categories of decision-  examination  composition  of  activities  reinforcement  decision-  the  discourse  also  of principles  offer  a  o f grammar  rhetoric. The  offer making  present a  results  natural  tasks,  integration addition, language  by  alternative  and  of  i n doing  oral  and  evaluating  terms,  between p r o c e s s e s communicative  indicate  this  that  to  this  pre-constructed  so p r o v i d e s  written the  and p r o d u c t s  may  help  not only  language t e a c h i n g .  a  may  decision-  context  language  discourse  research  activity  of  f o r the  learning. activities  provide  a  In in  bridge  f o r w r i t i n g but f o r  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT L I S T OF TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION a n d IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Rationale f o r present study Research problem Research questions REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The V a l u e o f " T a l k " i n t h e E S L C l a s s r o o m I n t e r a c t i o n a n d G r o u p Work P r a c t i c a l and e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e L i n k i n g c o n t e n t , meaning and form The l a n g u a g e o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g Constructed d e c i s i o n tasks D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and c o m p o s i n g L i n k i n g c h o i c e s t o knowledge C o n f e r e n c i n g and c o l l a b o r a t i o n Collaborative r e v i s i o n : a decision-making a c t i v i t y Hypotheses Background and r a t i o n a l e Operational statement of hypotheses METHODOLOGY Introduction Setting Participants Variables Independent v a r i a b l e Dependent v a r i a b l e s Experimental materials Procedure Research Design Experimental task Coding RESULTS Introduction Detailed findings Summary DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS Discussion Quantitative analysis Qualitative analysis Implications L i m i t a t i o n s of the present study Suggestions f o r future research Summary REFERENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C  II V VI 1 1 7 9 10 12 12 13 13 15 16 18 23 28 29 39 . 42 46 46 50 51 51 52 53 56 56 56 57 59 59 60 64 67 67 69 83 86 86 86 92 109 112 113 114 116 120 121 125  LIST OF TABLES Table  1  Background o f S u b j e c t s  55  Table  2  Frequency o f I n d i v i d u a l Decision-Making Moves b y I n d i v i d u a l P a r t i c i p a n t s f o r Each Task  70  T o t a l D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g Moves by T a s k , f o r E a c h S u b j e c t  71  Analysis of Variance Table: E f f e c t o f T a s k on T o t a l D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g Moves  72  Analysis of Variance Table: E f f e c t o f T a s k on E l i c i t i n g t h e Move " R a t e "  73  Analysis of Variance Table: E f f e c t o f T a s k on E l i c i t i n g t h e Move " G e n e r a t e A l t e r n a t i v e "  75  Chisquare Table: F r e q u e n c i e s o f Moves by T a s k  78  Chisquare Table: T o t a l Moves by I n d i v i d u a l s  81  Table Table  Table  Table  Table Table  3 4  5  6  7 8  f o r Each Task  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o my t h e s i s c o m m i t t e e , D r . B e r n a r d Mohan, D r . M a r g a r e t E a r l y a n d D r . Dan Pratt, for their critical r e a d i n g o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t and constructive suggestions. Thank y o u t o D r . Mohan, my advisor, f o r c o n t i n u e d guidance, s u p p o r t and feedback; t o Dr. E a r l y f o r h e r i n s p i r a t i o n a l r o l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h i s p r o j e c t ; and t o Dr. P r a t t f o r p r o v i d i n g a different perspective. A d d i t i o n a l thanks a r e extended t o Dr. W a l t e r B o l d t and t o Ross Barbour f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f the data. I w o u l d a l s o l i k e t o a c k n o w l e d g e V a n c o u v e r Community College, K i n g Edward Campus, f o r a l l o w i n g a c c e s s t o a d u l t ESL c l a s s e s i n w h i c h t o c o l l e c t d a t a f o r t h e s t u d y , a n d t h e s t u d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d a s s u b j e c t s i n t h e s t u d y . Special t h a n k s t o D e n n i e R o t h s c h i l d , i n whose c l a s s r o o m t h e d a t a was gathered, f o r h e r e n t h u s i a s t i c i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o j e c t and also for her c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n the coding of the data. F i n a l l y , I wish t o thank S t e v e Richmond, my h u s b a n d , for h i s assistance w i t h word p r o c e s s i n g and e d i t i n g , b u t most o f a l l f o r h i s unwavering support, patience, and f l e x i b i l i t y throughout the completion o f t h i s t h e s i s .  1  INTRODUCTION and IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM  Introduction Recent have  developments  identified  t h e advantages  "problem-solving" classroom  begun  into  meaning  more  With  effectively. provided  process  has  indicated  involve  to  (Clifford,  solving  second language A  growing  theory  school  structures (Mohan,  emphasis  o f meaning,  on  insight  that  into  conditions of  good  activities  writing  first  the  composing  which  a r e most  composition  and  peer  These have been to learners  applied to  of English  language  problem  with  and  use  of  reasoning  acquisition  approaches  The u n d e r l y i n g  idea  specific  and  here  as a  1989).  which  i n t e r a c t i o n i n the classroom  learning  associated  solving  skills  collaboration  i n second  verbal  has  language (LI)  o f thought that  from  research  & Rothschild,  the  1985) .  of  language  1988; L i n g  learners'  necessitate  second  (ESL) ( L i n g ,  suggests  increase  an  1981; H i l l o c k s , 1 9 8 6 ) .  some e x t e n t i n t e a c h i n g  interactive  c a n be h e l p e d t o communicate  t h e development  problem  and  shift  Research  has  beneficial  the  learners  composition and  first  t o t h e communication  t o e x a m i n e how  o f language e d u c a t i o n  of incorporating  both  activities.  "correctness"  i n the f i e l d  language  decision  i s that  will  we  making do n o t  l e a r n a l a n g u a g e j u s t t o know t h e l a n g u a g e , b u t t o u s e i t a s a  medium  The  o f communication  language  that  we  need  and l e a r n i n g to  use  i n the real  i s dependent  world.  upon  the  2  immediate  situation.  language  t o use  understanding a  in a  with  necessary  situation  of the link  decision-making  familiar  Furthermore,  the concepts  course  of  learning  become  aware  t o engage  any  knowledge this  based  i s the  content; linked  those  some  principles, is  evaluation  decisions, in  along  the  with  In the students process.  appropriate  as knowledge t o  of activity.  language  i s best  language  Inherent  learned  classroom,  i n similar  form  in  through must  and  be  with  and c h o i c e .  (concepts  and  When  The r e s e a r c h knowledge  faced  structures  situations that  the  content-based  or situations.  those  and e v a l u a t i o n ) .  a  f o r t h e language  knowledge  to practical  knowledge  of  activities  separates  choice)  concerned  aspect  a contextual link  that are linked  theoretical  skills  a framework f o r t h e s t r u c t u r e o f  practical  framework  and  becomes  An a c t i v i t y p r o v i d e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r  and p r o v i d e s  sequence  here  that  t o content.  knowledge  of  process,  In  but i s required t o  involved  the concept  i n a second  needs t o be used  only  communicative  situation  language  proposes  on  about  theoretical  situation.  idea  that  learning topic,  (198 6)  not  h o p e f u l l y be t r a n s f e r r e d  decision-making Mohan  and  structure  i n this  language use, w i l l  a  o f e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e .  the  the  on  learner  vocabulary  understand  Ability  a  f o r t h e immediate  of  depends  t o know what  between language and c o n t e x t .  situation  the  the a b i l i t y  with  that The into  (description,  are  linked  to  classification, t o be d e s c r i b e d structures  a specific  of  choice,  3  an  individual  immediate on  considers  s i t u a t i o n , but  background  Exposure  use  to  understand  by  these  for  found  children's  activities  for  Numerous  providing  opinions  and  that  Cabetas,  1 9 8 0 ) ; and  in  as  to  the  to to  the begin  represented  provides  the  relations  are  activities  are  school-related  whereas in  at  for  other  the  "to  their to  stimulate  a  and way  to as  use  of  such goals  as:  ideas and  while  and  new  (Byrd  enable possible,  students  the  hear  discussion  young  backgrounds.  "own  students"...  life  required  ESL  on  state  o r a l exchanges"  adults  natural  adult  focus  vocabulary  that  reflect  i n t e r e s t s and  which  content  everyday  activities  "opportunity  of  of  school  used of  making  content  express  a r i s e i n the  interest  practise,  of  i n the  But  the  to..."reinforce  of  and  to  ideas  patterns  are  context  textbooks  students  and  relations  d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s ,  encouraging  them  the  activities  ESL  related  semantic  decision  a wide v a r i e t y  adult  opinions";  these  for  participate  to  interactive  how  goals.  requires  choice,  semantic  based  and  interactive activity  adults.  content,  must a p p e a l  the  in  and  the  language.  used  classes  learners  academic  An  target  topics  easily  are  learning  i n the  The  ESL  there  structures.  opportunity  for  that  standards  processes  evaluation  for  possibilities  situations  thinking  of  the  values,  making  the  knowledge s t r u c t u r e s  expressed  of  decision  to  possibilities  evaluates  knowledge  to  individual  most  various  of  evaluate enabling language  &  Clemente-  topics  the the  and  which  student  to  knowledge  4  s/he  has  acquired" Despite  offered  in  the  useful  language the  of  t o be  can  task  First  interaction there  of  in a  stated  by  will  and  acquire  a  1975,  as  almost  beyond  content), in  the  made and  there ESL  guarantee a  topic  situation.  For  and  useful  d Anglejan, language  when  t o the  task  some t o p i c . . . w h i c h  students the  basic  seems t o be  classroom.  to  "The  1  student  (after  topics  find  second  adult  supply the  suggests  out,  and  the  Once  invariably  research laid  to  of  is  (Tucker  and  get  the  to  life  less  skills  and  Secondly,  less adult  p u r p o r t i n g t o encourage i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n -  t o be  problems,  and  content"  activities  decision  someone... a b o u t  162) .  level  have been used "relevant  with  number  no  meaningful  Tucker  effectively  a  is  future  i t must be  situations  though the  there class  or  are  all,  interest,  present  interesting  intermediate  already  of  o f l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g becomes i n c i d e n t a l  d'Anglejan,  Recent  1985).  texts,  students  her  As  communicating  making  of  learned,  most  inherently  ESL  other  general  or  learner.  student the  of  his  range  content.  majority  to  broad  and  the  supposedly  that  the  these  problems with are  (Bowers & G o d f r e y ,  the  various  that  figure  out  options  instead  l e a r n e r s need  then  students  the  of  with to  both  choose  having  opportunity  what needs t o be  the from.  problems  to  identify  done  through  a group e x p l o r a t i o n of v a r i o u s p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s ( B r i c e Heath,  1989) .  making s k i l l s in  the  Similarly, i n the  schools  programs  to  improve  have d e s c r i b e d t h e  d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s  as  "define the  decision  first  stages  decision to  be  5  made" and  followed  Shuster,  "identify Studies  by  "identify  1980)  possible  Resource  "identify  solutions  Manual,  importance o f these denies  or  stages  and  language p o i n t  apply  o f view,  these  stages  acquisition  component  specific  workplace  ESL  type  an  of decision  limited  currently  a  and  states  that  involves "the  i s almost  sufficient  experience" o f view,  such  for Specific  opportunity  available  a good  second  as  (p.279).  outside of  an  individual  Purposes  classroom,  nonexistent  f o rthe adult  f o r e x p l o r a t i o n o f f e r e d b y most  commercial  language  instruction)  language,  (from  w h i c h we c a n  considered  reflects  a  maximum then  form-content  use  of  activities  link  i n mind.  important i n  very  i n terms o f language a c q u i s i t i o n .  o f a d e c i s i o n making s i t u a t i o n the  materials  i d e a o f what i s t y p i c a l l y  shortcoming  for  from  language  (1981)  making  life  situations,  of opportunity  of  of information  i n real  English  And  learned  learner. The  get  Ross  and l a n g u a g e p o i n t  learning  or  previously  elements  of appropriate bodies  a content  (Social  do n o t g e t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o  between  t o ground decision-making From b o t h  by  t o recognize the  situations.  o f d e c i s i o n making.  knowledge  followed  alternatives"  Failure  new  they  the relationships  this  issue"  (Ochoa  i n t h e language l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y  i t to  learn  very  the  or  1986).  alternatives"  l e a r n e r s o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o access  knowledge  the  available  serious  I f the value  i s that i t provides a context  both need  practical t o be  and  designed  theoretical with  So, i n summary, n o t o n l y  this should  6  an  activity  content  be  knowledge,  maximally  collaborative interactive  skill  a  But  i n spite  and  other  feel  students  "interactive  and  adult  make  as  an  they  important  learners,  f o rtheir  future.  The  h a s come t o b e a c c e p t e d a s  that  or  decision-making.  revision  t o improve t h e i r  i n groups own  revision  activities",  there  adult  instructors  ESL  a s an i s o l a t e d from  remains a to  curriculum  activity  interactive,  of  writing.  use o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e  among  away  the  i s o f t e n t h e most  a s a m a j o r component o f t h e i r  time  view  t h e y do n o t " e n j o y " w r i t i n g ,  learn  seen  decisions  i s to  Writing  ESL  which  may  communicative  and s p e a k i n g . interactive  collaborative additional  be  even  writing  hesitancy  offer  compositions  language  i s evidence  i tis still  If  to  and  of the spreading  valuable  students  that  would  problem-solving  incorporate writing  listening  of  practical  interactively  compositions  there  widespread  take  transfer  designed  both  student's  f o r second  of  can help  which  making t a s k .  of written  Furthermore,  because  be  f o r everyone,  of  i t i s probably  process  peers  to  relevant  decision  that  revision  solution,  revision  t h o u g h many may realize  also  eliciting  opportunity  content  difficult  for  possible  the  on  i t must  for later  discourse.  One students  and u s e f u l  but  effective  theoretical  based  relevant  revision  value would  writing  as have  task,  activities, could  effective the  dual  oral  be  i n particular viewed  as  interaction  advantage  of  the  having tasks,  working  on  7  writing well),  and s p e a k i n g based  Rationale  (and i n f a c t ,  r e a d i n g and l i s t e n i n g  o n t h e same r e l e v a n t c o n t e n t .  f o r present  study  There has been l i t t l e e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e that  occurs  might  i n the context  i n the L2  writing be  engage  valuable  i n oral  research,  of  classroom,  or  f o r improving  expository  revision  problem  evaluation is  of peers  kind of talk  d i s c u s s i n g each of  whether  L2  learners'  discourse.  this  The  as  an  solving  activity  strategies  revision  language o f d e c i s i o n The  ability  goal  and  the  to  of  this  a valuable task  designed revision  chosen  for interactive  practice  in  stresses  the  for this  I n o t h e r words, f o r e l i c i t i n g the  investigation  decision-making.  a s two t a s k s .  teaching  ESL  importance  compositions  of  f o r meaning,  editing  and  Much  first  students content  the compositions  activities  i n v o l v e d two t a s k s , c a l l e d  used  investigation  first  of  i n adult  many E S L i n s t r u c t o r s  ESL c l a s s e s , consider these  revising  and  collaborative revision  and  composition  organization,  pre-fabricated problem-solving  to  Collaborative  current theory  f o r grammar  the  was  specifically  language  and  Therefore  Because  of  making?  approach  was v i e w e d  the  language  compare c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n t a s k s w i t h t a s k s  widely  context  f o r encouraging  and c h o i c e i n t h e E S L c l a s s r o o m .  collaborative  later  others'  t h e r e f o r e , was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f  collaborative use  as  their and  mechanics. revision  and e d i t i n g . activities  i t c a n be  assumed  are that  t a s k s t o be v a l u a b l e i n  8  some  way.  The  situations will  be  instantly  students  are  engaged  activity.  need  to  alternatives,  use  "constructed  decision"  In  type  comparison. commercial learners;  Not  for  the  particular  the  time.  solving  activities  secondary  interest  to  rationale be  too  found  school  the  for this difficult  composition-related between t a s k s  basis  that  suggestions,  will  decision  be  called  throughout  a  this  comparison  to  the  included  in  the  are  to  based  of  was  great on  because could  they  be  Social  students.  to  more  are  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  was  to  and tasks  see  i f the  time  personal  be  an  texts  designed  of  such  additional  an  "academic" Part  "academic"  k n o w l e d g e and  of  at  problem-  was  viewed  relevant  to  consuming.  could  develop  part  compared  It  ESL  teaching  are  Studies  use  adult  pains  they  to  for  content  students  in  content  language of decision-making.  b a s e d on  so  the  evaluating  giving  of  to  up  such as  especially  go  goal,  examine t h e  task to e l i c i t  students  down  set  which  activity  activities,  content-based  is  activity  developed  group  overall  right  and  instructors  activities  These  that  pre-constructed  or  non-ESL  instructors  solving  entertaining  activities.  activities many  get  activity,  ready-made  a  so  can  the  task  all  problem  for  of  revision  addition,  content  disagreeing,  This  a  on  functions  through  provided  based  activity  language  situation.  collaborative  and  The  agreeing,  progressing  thesis,  usually  i n v o l v i n g easy-to-teach  interaction  while  tasks  task  If as  of  so, a  the  would the  "bridge"  more d e m a n d i n g  9  t a s k s b a s e d on In  academic knowledge.  summary,  the  two  broad  categories  of  interactive  t a s k s u n d e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n were c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d commercially  designed  composition-related and  tasks  a popular  f r o m an  The  activity  LI S o c i a l  decision"  included  collaborative editing.  included task  "constructed  constructed a d u l t ESL  and  tasks.  collaborative  f r o m an  Studies  tasks  The  revision  decision  tasks  textbook  and  a  text.  Research problem The of  purpose  whether  effective  elicit  the  just  problem  language  specifically premise  this  collaborative  equally  the  of  of  designed that  activities  study  for this  activities,  they  purpose.  general serve  language  cognitively  the  linked  which  This  talk  be  would  activities  was  based  tasks  are  in  purpose to  question might  as  d e c i s i o n making  increase  the  editing  decision-making,  but  is  explore  and  solving  language classroom, that  to  revision  interactive to  was  the of  the  on not  second  eliciting stages  of  decision-making. In coding  a d d i t i o n , the  system  activities  which  under  study  would  examined t h e  allow  investigation.  the  use  of  comparison  a of  possible the  four  10  Research  questions  There  i s evidence  that  writing i s intimately  with  d e c i s i o n making,  and  help  improve w r i t i n g .  Furthermore,  problem  solving  language  of  knowledge language the  activities  classroom  language  in  reflects  central  on  to  process  evaluate  these  problem  research  stimulate  the  evaluation  and  commonly (identify  alternatives the  the  second  expository  linked  to  choice.  accepted the  can  indicates that in  is  indications,  solving  necessary  which  behaviours  decision-making  Based  order  of  group  are  decision-making,  structures  alternatives;  that  linked  as  problem;  based research  on  the This  part  of  suggest  criteria).  explored  one  question:  1. Does t h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n / e d i t i n g t a s k e l i c i t t h e language of d e c i s i o n making as effectively as a task designed specifically f o r decision-making w i t h i n an ESL class? T h i s q u e s t i o n was  addressed  by  c o n s i d e r i n g the f o l l o w i n g :  2. I s t h e l a n g u a g e w h i c h , i n t h e o r y , s h o u l d be p r o d u c e d during a decision-making task (requests/ offers, agreement/disagreement; advice (modals); preferences; e v a l u a t i o n a d j e c t i v e s ; v e r b s o f judgement; j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f o p i n i o n s ; and s p e c i a l i z e d v o c a b u l a r y r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n t e n t ) e x h i b i t e d w i t h t h e same f r e q u e n c y d u r i n g t h e c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g t a s k s a s d u r i n g t h e two "constructed decision" tasks? 3. I s t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e i n o v e r a l l v e r b a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s between t h e f o u r t a s k s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n ? The previous questions can be dealt with through q u a n t i t a t i v e measurement. The f o l l o w i n g must be d e a l t w i t h qualitatively, by examining the actual content of the d i s c o u r s e and e x p l o r i n g i t s e d u c a t i o n a l v a l u e :  11  4. What do p a r t i c i p a n t s t a l k a b o u t d u r i n g e a c h o f t h e f o u r t a s k s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n ? What a r e t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r learning? 5. In p a r t i c u l a r , i s there a difference i n the kind of b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e r e f e r r e d t o when p a r t i c i p a n t s j u s t i f y t h e i r suggestions and/or d e c i s i o n s ?  12  REVIEW OF  RELATED LITERATURE  Introduction A must be  review  drawn f r o m  proposed making  based  activities  are  learning,  idea  be  of  serve  activity,  a  process,  the  proposed  strategies  composition addressed.  and  a  that  on  interactive  the  be  current  based study  interactive oral  possible  oral  the  revision,  for  decision  for  evolution  was  second of  this  include a discussion  must  This  processes  study  research  activity  This w i l l  discussed.  current  Because the  supporting  cognitive  suggests  the  c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n of  specifically be  to  valuable  because the  worthwhile  will  concerning  a  activities  research  composition,  which  these  whether  as  areas.  background  Secondly,  question  relevant  premise  reviewed.  that  content.  and  several the  premise w i l l  can  research  on  language  the  of  as will  addresses  the  compositions  of  include in  making written  decision  involved  teaching.  relevant  decision  idea a  on  of  making research  composing,  Finally  connection  between  "decision-making"  language  research written will  be  13  The V a l u e o f " T a l k " i n t h e E S L C l a s s r o o m ; An E v o l u t i o n i n T h i n k i n g Interaction In  a n d Group Work  the last  researchers language  have  decade,  become  short  led  t o an i n t e r e s t  second  answers  language  talk  from  Talk  that  speakers  than  classroom  (Long,  interactive  be g i v e n  small  on  groups of  negotiation  clarification checks,  tasks  Long  evidence  for the value  were  activities  confirmation  both  greater  than  cite  t h e range in  talk. native  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by "interactional speakers  and encourage "moves"  checks, (Long  studies  o f g r o u p work.  the  t o work i n p a i r s o r  f o r meaning, . o r  and P o r t e r  that  allow  between  non-native  and r e p h r a s i n g s  1985).  have been  Therefore,  which  classroom  or  more o p p o r t u n i t y  requests,  repetitions  i s supposedly  in  more " n a t u r a l "  talk  meaning"  awareness  activities  to elicit  "natural"  dialogues  This  of a r t i f i c i a l  for  1981).  o f phrases,  questions.  i n order  "negotiation  t h e r e must b e more t o  repetition  instead  (NNSs) s h o u l d  did  u s e a new  (NSs) o f a l a n g u a g e  adjustment"  moves  to learn to actually  i n using  i s considered  continued  types  i f second  t o teachers'  students  i n s t r u c t o r s and that  f o r communication,  i n the classroom  and  language  i n c r e a s i n g l y aware  learners are going  language as a t o o l talk  second  various such  as  comprehension and  providing  Porter,  empirical  Some o f t h e f i n d i n g s  o f f u n c t i o n s and q u a n t i t y o f  small  group  oral  interaction  i n t e a c h e r - l e d d i s c u s s i o n s ; t h a t L2 l e a r n e r s  n o t p r o d u c e more e r r o r s i n NNS-NNS p a i r s t h a n  i n NS-NNS  14  pairs  o r i n the presence  negotiation  are  cite  Barton  suggested  monitoring research gap,  a n d Samuda  they  (1980) who  i s , they  should  information  (Pica  their  (Pica  &  input  acquisition,  "optimal  work.  and P o r t e r  that  learners  explicit  Other  involve  require  every  else  information  participant  to  t o solve 1986)  .  a  This  for participants to  level  and t h e r e b y  t o Long's  an  & Pica,  conditions  error  interaction  has i n order  other's  1985:117)  according  given  1985, Doughty  t o each  Doughty,  be  should  nobody  & Doughty,  meant t o p r o m o t e  adjust  group tasks  occurred i n  Long  found  a s much  e r r o r treatment s t r a t e g i e s ,  could  during  indicates that  that  problem  that  tasks  contribute  is  a s b y NNSs i n NS-NNS p a i r s .  capable o f employing v a r i o u s  and  and t h a t  o r r e p a i r and a p p e a l s f o r a s s i s t a n c e  NNS-NNS p a i r s also  o f the teacher;  o f comprehension" increases  1981 i n p u t  language  and i n t e r a c t i o n  model. This up  new  research horizons  acquisition of  both  focus,  (SLA),  content  interaction  have  in  while  thinking  h a s some m a j o r and language complained  do n o t i n c o r p o r a t e  meaningful  negotiation  mutual comprehension. engage i n t a s k s  i n that  i t opened  about  second  language  shortcomings  use.  enough  i n the areas  Proponents  legitimately  classrooms  from  valuable  that  group  of  traditional  tasks  requiring  a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s working  They c l a i m  "which emphasize  that  input-  ESL l e a r n e r s  toward need t o  c o l l a b o r a t i o n and an e q u a l  s h a r e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y among c l a s s r o o m p a r t i c i p a n t s " ( P i c a , 1987:17).  They  have  offered  no a d e q u a t e  solution  however,  15  and  i t i s interesting that  their do  point  they  t h e sample  are largely irrelevant to real  reflect  an attempt  learner,  an i d e a  Although  Long  based tasks  to offer  put forth quite  (1985)  discusses  related to learner  on a t o p i c ,  expansion  importance  o f content-based  in  section.  a later  and  negotiation  language  miss  topic  f o r meaning  sufficient  any  evidence  t o lead f o rthat  the idea  i s enough  to the desired  discourse:  focus  i n natural  on what we  practice; have?  i n other  Even  many s c h o o l this  suggest  t o focus  and s k i l l s .  that  are trying  interaction second  the process  end, w i t h o u t  providing  learners the opportunity i t i s also  necessary  t o get a student  words, what v a l u e  a basic  adequately  which  focus  describe  to  speak  talk  difficulty for overcome  in a or  cohesive  a  static  an o p i n i o n .  Brown  et a l .  types  of  on s p e c i f i c  to  t o l e a r n and  does t h e g e n e r a t e d  language,  i s i n the a b i l i t y  o r t o support  tasks  The  further  t o increase that  a  t o the  c h i l d r e n , and f o r many a d u l t s who n e v e r  to  situation,  discourse,  i n the f i r s t  problem,  manner,  the classroom,  the d i s t i n c t i o n  While i t i s important t o give engage  content-  claim.  P r a c t i c a l and e x p o s i t o r y  to  (1987)?  be d i s c u s s e d  a c q u i s i t i o n makes t h e a s s u m p t i o n  is  by P i c a of  then, to the  t o be r e l e v a n t  will  Furthermore,  How  t h e need  o f knowledge tasks  t o prove  status"  needs o u t s i d e  task  further  "equal  t h e importance  i n p u t - i n t e r a c t i o n proponents and f o r t h a t  used  life.  adamantly  most  learners'  tasks  changing (1984)  expository  16  discourse need  to  and make  teaching speaker  which  to  c a n h e l p s t u d e n t s u n d e r s t a n d where  changes. establish  describes  a  An  example  the  needs  situation  of  that  is  the  an  audience.  the  use  of  listener  This  process of  apparently  does  not  speaker  enhances  the  awareness  that  his  subsequent  performance  shows more a u d i e n c e s e n s i t i v i t y .  The  importance  research  that  conversation language  used  Similarly  i n expository discourse  indicates (what in  communicative  within  few  latter  m e a n i n g may  calls  "chat")  or  (1984)  proficiency".  the  difference  academic  language a  a  Brown  Cummins  interpersonal  so  a  listener's  of developing s k i l l s  audience  also  peer If  understand, the l i s t e n e r can supply cues t o h e l p the clarify.  they  everyday  and  kind  distinguishes skills"  While  f a r longer  indicate that  between  professional  and  the  to  former  may  of  situations.  between  "basic academic  be  a second  achieve.  language  the  "cognitive  years of beginning to learn takes  i s s u p p o r t e d by  acquired language,  Negotiation  i s b e i n g produced,  for  but t o  what end?  L i n k i n g c o n t e n t , m e a n i n g and Swain a positive from  to  (1985) a r g u e s t h a t effect  create  repertoire precisely  desired"(p.252) .  i f negotiation  on g r a m m a t i c a l  "comprehensible  linguistic  form  output: of the and More  f o r meaning  acquisition, output  learner  as  extends  he  she  appropriately recent  work  i t i s derived  that  by  or  has  the Swain  the  attempts meaning (1988)  17  describes  classroom  incorporate  activities  content  i n such  meaning  relationships"  complex,  and  According  coherent  t o Swain,  a  and  the  way  need  or  not normally  be u s e d  the t r a d i t i o n a l  from  communication  skills  t o be  learning,  develop,  t h e t a s k must  focus  o f language s p e c i f i c Mohan  designed  "function" involved that  particularly informal So  or  Language  is  knowledge, be  types  the  aspects  of  any  linking  situation.  Mohan  these  students  language aspects  and of  on  both  the  are  to  encourages t h e  reflecting  the  Mohan's  claim i s  w h i c h we t e a c h and  development  content.  of  content  t o develop,  practical  situation.  the  (Mohan)  proficiency  and  ESL  there  theoretical  students  have  l a n g u a g e and c o n t e n t b e y o n d t h e p r a c t i c a l offers  a  model  with  a  cognitive  content  -  a  any  basic  structure"  of the task.  for  content  difficulty  skills  of talk  "knowledge  and f o r l i n g u i s t i c focus  that  conversation  l a n g u a g e must be l e a r n e d t h r o u g h  necessary  a  those  (1986) d e s c r i b e how t a s k s c a n be  i n t h e performance  our l i v e s ,  ensure  foundation f o r  on a g o a l w h i c h  specific  (Staab)  more  ( p . 81) .  although  language  s i n c e l a n g u a g e i s t h e medium t h r o u g h  conduct  must  elicit  "form-  t o t h e problem.  (1986) and S t a a b  to  on  "contrived" to  classroom.  i f expository  which  longer,  may p r o v i d e a n i m p o r t a n t  further  use  focuses  the learner"  i n either  language  system  "demand  t h e a u t h e n t i c u s e o f language forms, would  K-12  that  which  language  tasks  in  topic  which  can  structure  knowledge  framework  to the s p e c i f i c  help to  provide  integrate  which  discourse  links  involved.  18  The  framework o r g a n i z e s  practical  discourse  includes  the  sequencing,  discourse  i n t o two m a j o r  (related to a specific  knowledge  and c h o i c e ;  categories:  s i t u a t i o n ) , which  structures  of  description,  and t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e  (related  t o b a c k g r o u n d knowledge and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s ) , w h i c h classification, broken  p r i n c i p l e s and e v a l u a t i o n .  down i n t o  structures, specific  activities  and  each  language.  activity  h a s an  language  functions  language  elicit  only  "essence"  by  most  and  discourse  The  occur  of  elicited  from  that  causes  that  over  of each  certain  though  some  a l l classroom  activities  effectively  forecasting/reasoning this  language  and  function  c h i l d r e n through  was  questioning  important  Staab  contribution  i s that  generated during  of research  i t examines classroom  and  by  analyses  Swain, actual  tasks.  language o f decision-making The  previous  structured classroom, to  function  which  use  researcher. A  Mohan  to  the  states  She f o u n d  Furthermore,  effectively  the  Staab  carefully structured  t h e language  t h e s i x knowledge  elicits  or quality  seem  Any t o p i c c a n be  reflect and  t o be u s e d .  evaluation/choice. most  requires Similarly,  functions  activities,  which  includes  or  discussion contrived  learners  practice  tasks  in  forms,  specifically  and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .  without c a r e f u l l y  the  a r e u n l i k e l y t o have  certain  informed reasoning  suggests that  second  enough those Why,  language opportunity  related  i n fact,  to  is i t  19  so  vital  to  discourse  ensure  that  i n t h e classroom?  between s i t u a t i o n s  which  language  that  and t h o s e  a shift  from  do n o t ?  contexts,  allowing  language  closer  Real  approach  to  of  learners to fully  life  in  almost  i n language  communicative making  skills  the  associated with  requires the learner  e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e .  often  stops  a in  short  the opportunity f o r involve. some k i n d o f  goes beyond t h e t y p i c a l  instruction.  with  with  communication  always i n v o l v e  activities  language  learners  s i t u a t i o n might  and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  learners  second  situation  decision-making,  familiarizing  of  i s the difference  providing  exploit  a "real"  situations  used  type  t o a communicative/  appropriate  the t y p i c a l  learning that  this  Even though t h e r e has been  approach  understanding  specific of  coming  use  What e x a c t l y  a grammar-oriented  instruction,  will  r e q u i r e the use o f decision-making  situational/functional  better  students  In  addition  vocabulary  and  a situation,  t o understand  A c c o r d i n g t o Mohan  to  basic  decision-  the concepts  of  (1986),  " T a l k about c h o i c e i s t a l k which goes beyond t h e l i m i t s o f t h e immediate s i t u a t i o n and calls f o r a wider language potential. From t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p o i n t o f v i e w , a person i n an a c t i o n situation i s making r e a s o n e d c h o i c e s a b o u t what t o s a y a n d what to do....(the decision-making situation) o f f e r s a n o n l i n g u i s t i c context of p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l k n o w l e d g e w h i c h c a n b e made e x p l i c i t i n d i s c o u r s e " (p. 5 5 ) . Relating decision-making, situation,  in  Mohan's c o n c e p t i t i s evident requiring  the  o f knowledge that  the  evaluation  structures  to  decision-making and  choice  of  20  alternatives, other  knowledge  must be them  also  structures.  language  Before  portions  previously  of  them  may  Therefore,  occur the  sophisticated language  terms  in  and  as  of  which w i l l a  result  of  person  terms  of  its  i n i t s demands  Smith  speaker's  be  that  et  for  for linguistic  t o do  in  with  the  each  of  others which  Similarly,  rules what  choice.  the  most  eliciting  explicitness  or  on  actual first  on  perform  specific  of  depending  on  "reason  venture" or f o r  takes  action"  are  action.  identified:  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , each i n completing be  units  a person an  a  into  (p.27). or  by  involve  on  Four  specific  action,  purpose,  which  interacts  reason-action venture,  characterized  "evaluative ventures"  of  like.  content  i n t e n t i o n t o achieve a purpose  ventures  may  is  f o r d o i n g something  "something  to  a  talk  how  "ventures",  example,  linguistic  language  demonstrate  into For  deciding  factual  the  someone h a s  authorizes  i n reason and  (19 67)  something"  R e a s o n s c a n be b a s e d  rule  al  objectives.  deciding  which  i s , what  classified  "the reasons  rule  has  or  particular  t o e x p l o r e more d e e p l y what  concerns  consideration  a  potential  c l a s s r o o m d i s c o u r s e from  can  principles  is  Using actual  discourse  one  learner.  i s necessary  classrooms,  classify  categories  situation  means,  moves  a  the  help i n predicting  explicitness  a  from  evaluating,  accepted  decision-making  the p a r t of the It  in  learned, understand  t o the s i t u a t i o n ,  outcomes  the  stemming  able t o d e s c r i b e the v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s ,  or  related  involves the  several the  and  sub-moves.  application  of  21  some  value  action,  term  a  evaluated. should  be  t o an  person,  an  In order  to justify  able of  requires  an a b i l i t y  a  knowledge  but  from  or  i n either  case  generalization  Looking  a  specifically  t a l k which  occurs?  (1985)  evaluation  will  adjectives  such  invoking points choice and  such  o f view  " i n my  suggesting requests; permission.  the  This  as  framework.  as  i s the actual links  k n o w l e d g e may experience,  such  require  nature  of the  notional  language as  opinion"; possible  and d i s l i k e ; a s good/bad  expressions  The  associated  stating  with using  unsatisfactory,  or  preferences;  or right/wrong;  of opinion  alternatives of  (Leech  emotions,  language  use o f modals  expressions  processes  describing  and w i s h e s .  include  and  which  The l a n g u a g e a s s o c i a t e d  satisfactory,  as l i k e  well  properties  application  situations  the thinking  include  standards  will  Mohan  1975) w i t h  w i t h h i s knowledge  expressions  criteria  i n t h e C o m m u n i c a t i v e Grammar o f E n g l i s h  Svartvik,  "one  and...provide  and p e r s o n a l  at  what  and  be  knowledge.  and r e a s o n i n g ,  i s treated  ideal.  an  can  object"  practical  evaluation  it  that  to describe  learning  of previous  belief,  Providing  the "value  object  requires  a  term  (p.33).  to describe  academic  be  anything  the value  o f and a b i l i t y  both  may  a rating or evaluation,  i t s application"  t h a t w o u l d make t h a t v a l u e come  which  event,  to explicate  criteria  as  object,  stating  associated  with  such as " I t h i n k "  (should,  must,  c a n ) when  (giving advice);  commands;  intention,  willingness  and  22  The of  classroom  "ventures",  research  and  further  indicate that particular to  encourage  and  used. to  students  by e x t e n s i o n ,  to  allow  questions  include  those  alternatives,  found  not  questions,  explore  require  stimulate  criteria, Similarly,  were b e s t  a  is  which  "value  students  answers, to  facts,  f o r the (Brock,  indicating  alone.  that  in  classroom,  light  choice that  1986). with  be  values  i t offers  technique  elicited  or  recall  So a l t h o u g h  Staab  a strong  t h e work  And  elicit  factual o f Smith  clarification argument  types  questions,  of  i n the  f o r using  i n t h e second language  of indications that  will  make  referential  interpretation or opinion,  recognition  i s concerned  more e x p l o r a t o r y  and  specific  n o t by an a c t i v i t y  research  require  through  call  content  or  explore  as mentioned e a r l i e r ,  which  Meux  t o be  has t h e option  a n d more complex r e s p o n s e s t h a n do d i s p l a y  and  question"  language  longer  information  (1970)  are necessary  factual  assemble  elicited  by t h e t e a c h e r ,  unrelated  a n d Meux  of presentation  only  that  t o the concept  t h e language o f f o r e c a s t i n g / r e a s o n i n g and  evaluation/choice of questions  Smith  f o r the appropriate  that  discuss  that  types  by  discussion, a teacher  reasoned judgements. (1986)  work  to fully  I n any c o n t e n t  present  that contributed  a  classroom,  t h e language o f e v a l u a t i o n and  only  s p e c i f i c mode o f t h i n k i n g .  i n s i t u a t i o n s which  require  23  "Constructed d e c i s i o n " tasks Research classroom and  tasks  questions  type  has  which  and d i s c o u r s e . that  learners  i n small  they  groups  g e t more  teacher-fronted  include  collaborative, for  activities  are often  information,  a  alternatives  to  decision(s) for  meeting,  provided  with  the learner;  not  become group  so  so t h e y  making s i t u a t i o n s is  being  language.  indicate  to  F o r example,  Clemente-Cabetas,  c a n be  completed  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  in  this  paper  the text  1980) l i n k s  mentioned,  React  the  t o as  study. that  decision what  decision-making  Interact  communicative  of  or constructed  f o r producing as  are  choice  are referred this  a  o f background  and a  predetermined tasks  around  Students  previously  these  making These  o f t h e problem  is/are  which  classroom.  usually revolve  have a p a r t i c u l a r v a l u e  referred  available  presentation  therefore  texts  that  decision  they  " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " tasks throughout Some  surprising  a brief  As  on  in a  situation.  discuss.  carrying  than  problem  statement  t o be made  have  designed  of  research  of the teacher, i n  second-language  pre-determined  typically  is  small  the adult  the desired  to participate  i t  designed  interaction  independent  texts  activities  one c l a s s  Since  are capable  situation,  commercial  limited  t h e need f o r  t o encourage  opportunity  numerous  within  stressing  structured i n order  indicated  activities  cited  o r d i s c u s s i o n s t o be s p e c i f i c a l l y  o f thought  has  been  (Byrd  functions  &  with  24  grammatical one  forms  activity,  "describing" clauses, text  the  and modals.  with  and  points  stated  i n the introduction  issues  lend  difference  &  themselves t o research: between  a line  activity  are  and  from t h e  1985),  linked  (and)  condition". to this  In  opinions"  Godfrey,  formation;  result,  situation.  and c o n t r a s t s , i f  i n an  outcomes"  "clause  reason,  comparisons  (Bowers  "predict  problem  "expressing  Similarly,  Decisions  suggestions"  concession,  a specific  functions  are linked  Decisions,  grammar  within  "make  t o the  adverbial  In a d d i t i o n  text  that  "many  -  i t  is  of the  f o r example, what i s t h e  o f c r e d i t , a personal  loan  and a  m o r t g a g e , what i s a u n i o n , what does i t do, a n d what a r e t h e legal  requirements  opportunity background daily  f o r students information  tendency  texts  toward  several  a class.  content  they  K-12 s c h o o l  Mohan's  these  about may  which  offers the  decisions  based  on  a c t u a l l y use i n t h e i r  discussion  situations  of adult system,  language  knowledge  responsible  activities  to real  One  i s that the  f o r a l l adult  ESL l e a r n e r s  d e a l t with the importance o f  being should  ESL s t u d e n t s  i n the curriculum.  some  are apparent.  n o t be r e l e v a n t  Earlier  (1986)  demonstrate  d e c i s i o n making  o f these a c t i v i t i e s  majority  matter  like  shortcomings  decision-making  the  to talk  that  relating  c o n t e n t may s t i l l in  centre",  lives. While  life,  f o r a day—care  true be t r u e  to  reality;  t o the r e a l i t y of  i n a classroom.  c a n be i n t e g r a t e d I f content  framework  the  with  In the subject  i s presented  i n mind,  students  with should  25  become  increasingly  relates  to  completing system about  a  are  to  use  t h e o r e t i c a l discourse  the  thinking  processes  type  of  Educational  the  divorce  necessarily  able  task.  reality or  of  world  the  a  school  issues  shared  they  or  reality  of  employ  tasks  in  a  K-12  Talking  employment class  when  the  curriculum.  even  that  of  are  not  adult  ESL  learners. The actually well  stems  used  very  little  same  adult  room for  contrasted,  for  for  the  curriculum.  opportunity  ESL  perhaps  interactive  i n the  content  and  from  packaged  often no  second  for  real  with  which  situations  workers  may  to  problem,  and  is  b a s e d on  research adult  ESL  determine possible relevant  p r o b l e m s and Heath,  possible  1989).  ownership of decision  offers face,  the  research  not  needs  to  simulate  s o l u t i o n s are  Making t a s k s the  made and  explore  text &  possible to  the  source  of  the  of a l t e r n a t i v e s  life laid  because out  f i g u r e out  their  own  often  that  means g i v i n g them  be  up  suggests  already  letting  can  participants  real  more r e a l  p r o b l e m s by be  Discussion  Recent  little  the  of i t  the  the  leave  (Wallerstein  leaves  that  in  are  usually  This  examples  problem,  is  hence,  Work  but  short,  activities  suggested  information  do  there  expansion.  at  why  activities  and  tasks  solutions.  themselves. activities  making i s that  Problem-Posing  1987),  shortcoming  reason  these packaged  linguistic  Auerbach,  learners  One  decision class  serious  exploration,  example,  Action;  root.  ESL But  more  most the  (Bricestudents when  a  solutions,  26  which would r e q u i r e search and  f o r new  Auerbach  students,  i t  acquisition"  point  t h e y see  state  when  "a  of  a  appropriate Mohan's  This  decision language  knowledge  the  need.  content  comes  learn to  recognize  which  and  has  action,  from in  a code,  the  and  and  purpose  is  i s similar to  the  framework  discussion  or  the  a  ventures.  The  moves  analytical,  i n c l u d i n g d e s c r i b i n g the  et  from  the  al's concrete  discussing possible alternatives.  decision  purpose  making  to  demonstrate  in  the  for  i n the the  classroom.  the  of  specific  discussing specific  possibility The  questioning  this  approach  context of  of  of  the  simulating  "problem-posing"  purpose  to  empowering  approach a  why  there  for  using  originated  group  of  people  lives  literacy  thinking  action. criteria a  It do  has  been  involved  critical  adapted  for  exist, particularly  that  particular  relevant.  that  community  or  class,  so  ESL  classes  i t must be that  the  is  decisions  w i t h a common p r o b l e m t o t a k e c o n t r o l o f t h e i r education  the  workplace  real  in  the  situation, defining  is  The  of  discourse  s i m i l a r experiences,  and  of  critical  inherent  problem, r e l a t i n g a problem,  or  starting  production  concepts  Smith  the  language  c o n c e p t o f a l i n k between  situations  and  Wallerstein  factor  situation,  thinking  e x i s t i n g knowledge  motivating  Students  f o r language. in  that powerful  (p.2).  critical  thinking  their  k n o w l e d g e as  is  representation promoting  them t o u s e  through  but  and some  tailored  to  content  is  27  One  problem then,  i s to determine content  which  be r e l e v a n t t o a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s o f v a r i e d g o a l s , and academic them  to  both  decision  backgrounds.  the  practical  making,  opportunity that  skill  in  a  and  In  learning  the early  individual meeting  first  explore  a practical  of  have  the  solutions  and a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e  (Mohan, 1985:  of the  t a s k b u t move t o  101).  stages o f second language a c q u i s i t i o n , needs  immediate  expose  language  they  t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o b l e m , and  I t must b e g i n w i t h  expository  where  interests  i t must  theoretical  context  emerge f r o m b o t h p e r s o n a l  situation.  In a d d i t i o n  will  to  learn  practical  the  needs.  and l a n g u a g e c a n be more e a s i l y  an  language necessary At  this  integrated  point,  for  content  i n the classroom,  and t h e l a n g u a g e d o e s n o t move much b e y o n d t h e h e r e and As  adult  ESL  proficiency in  more  learners  move  toward  however,  assuming  that  cognitively  demanding  or  the goal academic  c o n t e n t must become more t h e o r e t i c a l . needs t o p r o v i d e  a b r i d g e between  context-embedded emphasize useful  what  and has  been  language  i s to  function  situations, task or  what Cummins  the  activity  (1983)  calls  situations.  stated,  i f talk  To  i s to  towards t h e development o f b o t h c o n t e n t knowledge  language  proficiency,  practical  and t h e o r e t i c a l  to  The  context-reduced  already  greater  now.  i t  b r i d g e t h e gap between  a decision  situation  might  in  faced  an  to  focus  on  aspects of a s i t u a t i o n .  around a p e r s o n a l be  needs  situation that  both In  content  and the  trying  revolves  i n an E S L c l a s s r o o m a n d one  academic  be  classroom,  that one  28  possibility as  a  i s to  context  students written  focus  for  have  a  and  the c r i t e r i a The  the  interactive common  composition,  developing  on  a  skills  of  improvement  will and  and  revision  their  Adult  ESL  skills  in  depends  background  on  their  knowledge  of  writing.  composition  evaluation  collaborative  improve  theoretical  composition  making.  this  following section  written  decision  written  to  f o r acceptable  between  of  need  and  using  task  d i s c u s s the the  concepts  choice.  of  cognitive link and  Recent  compositions  thinking  research  will  on  also  be  described.  Decision-making Ever writing has  of  is  the  choosing  already  with  as  a  been  course  of  occurring  an  for  on  this  time  Lester  text  &  already  text  or  a r e n o t what t h e y had  product,  process,  writing  i t  Pradl,  plans,  of a  involves  alternatives, has  been  l o o k a t what  from  the  through  Revision  produced,  their  on  revision  primarily  evaluating  action.  focus  Whether  or t a k i n g another  but  reviewing  ongoing  change, of  (Mayher,  "after  of the t e x t  as  seen,  "retranscribing"  exclusively  as  "re-vision,  perspective"  decide  or  need  r e s e a r c h began t o  decision-making.  viewed  drafts,  identifying  described  r a t h e r than  linked  compositions  and  composing  since composition  process  been  series  and  a  has  different 1983);  when that  as  writers portions  i n t e n d e d o r n o t what  their  29  readers  need"  memory  (Nold,  1981);  as  the  fuller  reality"  "substantive  change  —  reconceptualizing al,  1986).  the  In  " i n combination  (Lloyd-Jones,  re-seeing,  entire  other  seeing  t o one's i n t e n t i o n s  evaluating  intentions  k n o w l e d g e has alternatives  (Flower,  revising  one's e x i s t i n g t e x t whether  have  as  and  been  knowledge,  whether  and  et  comparing  one's  met,  even  Hayes  involves  been t r a n s l a t e d e f f e c t i v e l y , i f c h a n g e s n e e d t o be  1981);  restructuring,  discourse"  words,  with  then  one's  choosing  made.  L i n k i n g c h o i c e s t o knowledge What t e a c h e r s unskilled step  to  Lester of  is  parts  (Nold,  writers  not  adopt  even  become  when of  what how  aware  to of  a  they are  1982) ; t h a t  they  an  overall  the do  Martlew ways a  of  task  (1983)  a  difficult  and  problems;  not  aware  way  they  not  changes. to  Claiming  utilize  relate  only  that  knowledge  theme  a problem  suggests  approaching  is  not  discourse  locate  the  (Mayher,  often  that  that  taking  reader  feel  to  is  and  promising that  task  poor  and  may  consequently do  they  t h e i r w r i t i n g i s inadequate but  make how  for  for  u n a b l e t o g e n e r a t e a more  their  ways  but  however,  need  even when t h e y  are  habitual  unaware  know  text  that  the  in fact  (Smith,  the  find,  writing  make,  1981).  realize  in  realize  their  do  r e v i s e , they  solution  realize  of  1 9 8 4 ) ; and  want t o  remain  not  they  inevitable  (Perera,  researchers  1983); t h a t  choices  various  not  do  transforming  & Pradl,  the  write  writers  and  they  writers and  not do  must  structure  30  language,  Martlew  cites  metacognitive  skills,  properties  language  of  to  consciously  what  is  inappropriate  taking  skills,  deliberately, exists; acting  to  awareness  and  consistent earlier,  develop  is  situation  steps:  is  to  over  of  inaccurate  also  the  4)maintain This  of this  model  is  discussed  linking  i t  with  knowledge  own  from  and  a  process  of  recursive the  writers  includes  of  the  solving,  v a r i o u s parts of the  the  only  one  to  to,  problem along the  what  The  the  (p.  not  first of  the  rhetorical  write,  rhetorical  problem,  of  representation  in writing"  attending  rhetorical  question make.  "not  prompts  goals  prevent  the  need  (Flower  writer's  which  representation  understanding  a  o f composing"  addresses  the  which  writer's  as  choice's  audience  writer  theory  writing  and  problem,  the  act  ways  decision-making and  role-  and  3)find  and  and  situation.  apparently  and  reject  reflect  time.  awareness  being  and  1)recognize  need;  of  the  model  required;  action  concept  sees  govern  rhetorical  four  action  the  to  decision-making  includes  of  on  situations  Flavell's ability  on  terms,  revise,  given  the  maintaining  1981),  criteria  of  307).  "cognitive process  criteria  evaluate,  work  a c t i o n i n v o l v e g e n e r a l i z i n g background  from s i t u a t i o n  Hayes,  communicative  terms  appropriate  where  The  "reflecting  awareness o f t h i s  with  appropriate  involve in  in  (p.  consists  upon t h e  and  select,  2)recognize  (1974)  which  able  listeners/speakers"  Flavell's  i t also  369).  An  problem  can  to  mention  t h e way.  Beyond  writer  faces  the  31  tasks  o f drawing  goal,  generating  this the  into  and  writing;  his/her  process out  organizing  t e r m memory; s e t t i n g a  information,  and r e v i e w i n g ,  a n d Hayes  translating  evaluating  goals,  says  which  and r e v i s i n g  their more  goals  and Hayes  automatic  conscious  process  but  content  which  claim  that  which  skilled  criteria  o f a need  to  specify  carry  what t h e  able  involves  writers  f o r change.  to  o f t h e two seem  and e x p e c t a t i o n s  (but i n t e r n a l i z e d )  are  do  They  control  and  types.  to  have  governing  not only  over  goal-directed  exploring  major p o i n t  made  writer's  during  that  have  their  own  searches  for  consolidating  his  their  h i s control  level  explore  original tend  relate  the of  demands  of  requirements  over  an  sub-goals,  ability  a  to  operate  by  opposed t o i n t e n t i o n o r g o a l  a  "what  directed  the  particular  of  different  t o create  and r e - e v a l u a t e  or revised higher-level goal. to  directly  i s that  knowledge o f t h e t o p i c ; and p e r h a p s  importantly goal,  of  knowledge  genres; background  F l o w e r a n d Hayes r a i s e  composing  understanding  situation;  writers  goals,  does  into  knowledge. The  choices  the writer  may be a c o m b i n a t i o n  o r standard  evaluation  existing  i s directed  These a r e c a t e g o r i z e d  d i r e c t what  and c o n t e n t  the writer  o r t h e e f f e c t he wants t o h a v e on a n a u d i e n c e .  Organizational Flower  stress that  own n e t w o r k o f g o a l s .  the process,  writer  the  long  t e x t produced so f a r . Flower  by  knowledge from  most  a top  i n terms o f  Less p r o f i c i e n t  next?"  behaviour.  strategy  as  32  Bereiter w r i t e r s may  and  l a c k the  revision  or  process"  (p.35).  experience do  something  system these  39)  i n order  is vital  and  to  use  revising. from  alternatives  They  that  the  may  such  be  as  of  aided  alertness  and to  by  t e x t he using  students it  to  for  technique.  the  of  revision.  —  to  effort  feedback Again,  (p.50).  can  knowledge  ability and  to  "accessibly  coded  f o r a s s e s s i n g i t " (p. of  rhetorical ideas;  read with  structural  lacks the  2)sentence a writer's  writer and  may  devices  may  have  even  have  elements  of  the  " f u n c t i o n a l means o f  Therefore,  B e r e i t e r and  the  for  time.  a topic  conceptual  text  be  right  inexperienced  the  children  of  at  of  i f students  An  their  (p. 4 5 ) .  mind  highlighting  about  knowledge" "draw on  to  k n o w l e d g e on  knowledge  procedural"  trying  internal  original  teaching  wants t o produce, but  this  "extensive  the  that  procedures  1)formal  3)reading  e x t e n s i v e background conceptual  writing  This involves the  development  executive  strategies  combining;  for right,  funds  the  bring  44)  the  allows  knowledge s t r u c t u r e s o f  found  their  deliberately  k n o w l e d g e and  i s not  the  Scardamalia  attention  found  need  to develop  unskilled  choice.  consciously  redirect  of  n o t i n g whether o r not  linked  p u r p o s e f u l p l a n n i n g and to  a  that  system which  part  for a l l levels  directly  Bereiter to  become  identify  i t , and  e v a l u a t i o n and  trained  They  about  which be  to  feedback  n o t i n g t h a t something  (p.  can  (1981) s u g g e s t  "internal  evaluation  of  succeeds"  Scardamalia  tasks  must  k n o w l e d g e and Scardamalia  help  t o make  claim that  33  it  i s t h e engagement  procedural  Hayes  interdependent revision: the  the  variables  text  and  which  as g o a l s process  and c r i t e r i a  goal  problem  end  and d i a g n o s i s ,  implies that  of  ("running  know why  susceptible should  to  be u s e d .  problems;  and  Their  and t h e s e q u e n c e o f  ->  identification  involves  a continuum  "detections"  gist  The  a t one  D e p e n d i n g on  i n the  revision  first  strategy  f o r t h e change,  the s i t u a t i o n using detect/rewrite  through  with  o r "diagnosed", t h e  be " r e w r i t e "  the  of  and c a r r i e s i m p l i e d  justification  Although  model o f  i n t e r p l a y between t h e  "detected"  generally  original  t h e mental  some  strategy sentence  i n some s i t u a t i o n s , p r o b l e m s c a n a r i s e  does  the f i r s t  an  i s evaluating  criteria.  the writer  with  solving, a t the other.  i s some  g e n e r a t o r " ) may work when  key,  features  i n the latter.  there  the  involves  has been  i s , the writer  kind  two  t o recognize  or i l l defined  will  "revise"  that  45).  made i n  f o r evaluation.  The model  f o r problem  strategy  and  gets  the decisions  which i s w e l l - d e f i n e d  whether t h e problem  case  which  identify  deal  representation  strategies.  strategies  and  (p.  s e l e c t i o n process  representation,  selected  tasks  i n c l u d e s t h e r e v i s e r ' s image o f t h e t a s k a s  -> s t r a t e g y  available  (1986)  underlying  detect  of revision  ->  al  or the a b i l i t y  evaluation  problem  et  knowledge,  intention, well  solving  knowledge "harnessed t o g o a l s "  Flower,  of  i n problem  n o t have  text  was  diagnosis, This  a global  plan  inadequate. the  involves  and does n o t  F o r any problems  diagnose/revise  recognizing  strategy  and c a t e g o r i z i n g  34  p r o b l e m s , a n d b u i l d i n g up a r e p e r t o r y o f m e a n i n g f u l (Flower,  H a y e s e t a l . compare i t t o c h e s s ) .  w r i t e r t o separate t h e problem specific  features;  depending  on what  and  process  i s evident  composing  i s related  Whether  content,  signaling  skill  choice;  knowledge,  explicit  meaning i n t h e i r Faigley  minor  experienced considerably  (1981)  (grammar,  They  surface  and found  changes,  adjustments, student  such  based to  In order Nold  of  as  i t i s clear  ability  on  form  a  to learn  claims  inadequacies  categorize  mechanics, text-based that  and  revision minor  changes  inexperienced  a n d t h e few m e a n i n g particularly  that of  into  meaning-  (changes  in  writers  made  changes  made  additions.  More  w r i t e r s made more c h a n g e s t h a t i n v o l v e d  restructuring the text.  conclude  organization to  choices  knowledge,  indications  and W i t t e  changes)  meaning).  written  writing.  changes  preserving  of  1982),  an  that  of choice.  requirements  g o a l s and knowledge.  and u s e background need  and  making  and r e q u i r e s  t o bear;  information  concept  (Nold,  involves  awareness  response.  conventions  or  and c o h e s i o n  by l i n k i n g  access  Witte  word  i n writing  theoretical  were  (1986)  purpose,  layout,  mostly  t o Mohan's  relating  students  of  knowledge  the previous  the  needs;  surface  from  concern  audience  to  levels  bring past  decisions  language;  strategy  o t h e r n o i s e a n d f o c u s on  various  i s needed;  This allows the  i n f o r m a t i o n by i m a g i n i n g a r e a d e r ' s  It  that  maintain  from  patterns  Basically,  that successful revision  results  F a i g l e y and n o t from t h e  35  number  of  changes  c h a n g e , and to  related to  to  the  problem.  Cumming  who  either  their  first  simply any  or  of  a  a  the  problems  frequently compared in  resolve  apply  a  unevaluated  and  and  type  to  adult  or  the  writing  and  a  et  range to  were  rarely  did  problems  using for  problems able  did,  however,  which could  not  to  evaluated  al.'s detect-rewrite  left  from  resolved  They  writers  writer  Whereas  but  search.  basic  usually  a  in  strategies  writers  same e x t e n t ,  Hayes  way  a  solution.  and  proficient  to  students  writers  can  search a  closer  seems  ESL  basic  that  reaching  of  after detecting  i d e n t i f y i n g a problem  be  strategy  know how  to  requiring a  search  ability  second  unsolved. looks of  ESL  q u a l i t y of  at writing students  writing  Results  support  the  idea  that  writing  ability  and  that  writing  languages.  the  411).  problems without a search,  proficiency  contributors  in  evaluated  the  Cumming's r e s e a r c h language  of  found  heuristic  Apparently  search  or  through  Flower,  revision.  of  to  study  problem  less  them  to  a  writers  identify  a  (French),  problem  searches,  resolved  from  uses  intermediate  statement  proficient  a writer in  expert,  through  or  (1987),  variety  evaluating more  strategy  attacks  making  but  make t h e s e c h a n g e s e f f e c t i v e l y  language  approaches  makes  demands o f a s i t u a t i o n " (p.  ability  were  writer  degree t o which changes " b r i n g a t e x t  f i t t i n g the The  be  the  a  in  the  cognitive  Cumming s u g g e s t s t h a t  ability expert  as  and  two  separate  second  language.  processes may  underlie  extend  across  writers' ability  to  36  p e r f o r m may relevant  due  topic  rhetorical a  be  t o an  knowledge;  for  forms"  procedural  knowledge  and/or  an  write,  as  their  knowledge.  in  other  to  the  Additional  r e l a t e d to  years)  to  to  on  to  that  which  indicates  teaching  level  rhetorical  Bereiter "read  in  acquiring  an  alertness  signals  of h i e r a r c h i c a l structure  instead  gist  bring  (meaning) such  should  as  task.  in writing  knowledge  to  In  theoretical  can  text  be  can  top-  aid  suggestion  in that  technique",  technique carry  is  research  recognize  alertness to to  the  intentions.  Scardamalia's  with a writer's  "tell"  students  (1984, 1987)  written  they  of  writing  and  students  that  Connor  their  C a r e l l ' s L2  and  189);  as  ESL  t o each w r i t i n g  implies  s t u d e n t ' s own  the  t h e o r e t i c a l background  structure  (p.  meaning;  decision-making  and  s t u d e n t s must  of  constantly  drawn f r o m M e y e r ' s L I  comprehension.  focus  that  in  unique  revision  idea  foremost  they attend  that  a  knowledge  a  organization  evidence  require  their  with  knowledge  writing"  suggests  aspects  need  k n o w l e d g e t o b e a r as  directly  and  other  they  into  of  writers  less proficient writers  (in recent  discourse  words,  put  way  encouraged  to  use,  be  "transform"  first be  substantive to  and  knowledge  more e x p e r t  "appears  Cumming  accepted  must  which to  opposed t o  relation  language  but  ability  attend  students  operational  instantiating  rhetorical  should  an  problems which "provides  basis  commonly  additional attentional capacity  or  to  the  over i n t o  the  students  in  writing. (1987)  found  that  instructing  37  topical  structure  strategy,  t o check  encourages whole  analysis  could  f o r coherence  students t o consider  and a l l o w s  them  Benton given  a n d Blohm  t o the students  t o draw  knowledge, to  lead  after  them  to  The  rhetorical  providing  Bereiter the  a writer to  writing. their  appropriate  through  Students  were  by  were  action  use  the  given  with  or  more  general  cues  deeper t o get  existing ways,  elaborate (drawing  on  of  were  given  d i d improve.  after  the  i s b a s e d on t h e i d e a  o f "compare, solving  cues  help  to and  process  them  then  diagnose, in  evaluate  choose  the  s p e c i f i c problems and suggest and  revision  of the o r i g i n a l draft,  facilitate  problem  Bereiter these  (1987) d e m o n s t r a t e  can  This  criteria,  or diagnose  advocate  cues  draft  in different and  both  with  the  applying  Although  revision  lengthier  questions  designed  previous  the t o p i c  must u s e t h e s t r a t e g i e s  solutions.  the  as a  the r e l a t i v e  adjunct  were  upon  strategies.  work  work  writing  the text  of the f i r s t  and S c a r d a m a l i a  writer  development o f b e t t e r  operate"  writing: " i t  on t h e i r t e x t s  questions  about  questions  that  the w r i t i n g  extensively  produce  revision  knowledge) and s p e c i f i c t o t h e t o p i c .  Similarly,  that  The  and t o t h i n k  passages.  how  more  own  a  (p.683).  (1986) f o u n d  of processing.  writers  in their  as  f o r themselves  enabled the students t o elaborate levels  useful  and r e c o n s i d e r  t o gauge  coherence o f t h e i r w r i t i n g "  be  Scardamalia strategies  the study  the  first  tend  during  d i d show t h a t draft  was  to the when  written,  38  Bereiter reflective space is  and S c a r d a m a l i a  processes  model  used  (1987)  i n writing  of reflection.  an i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e content  text  occurs  production. i n everyday  beliefs  as  the  decisions. plans  Reflection  basis  for  opinions,  that  although  knowledge, o r output  from  subgoals,  or  f o r the  difficulty  going back t o t h e content  rhetorical  problem.  that  writing  there  i s an  most  (1985)  and  represents  a  an  i s the  learning  content  involves  practical  both  here  between  interplay  tasks.  space  here-and-now  on t h e a b i l i t y  for a specific  situation.  to  into  knowledge  have  when f a c e d w i t h a (1978) c l a i m  c a n o n l y be t r u e i f What i s reflective  i n general.  described background  particular  situation,  convert  they  with  a  on  rhetorical  similarity  between  concerns  Scardamalia  spaces.  t o put t h e o r e t i c a l  k n o w i n g what b a c k g r o u n d  and  t h e two  as  and  and i s based  space,  and l e a r n i n g  Writing  space  t h a t Murray's  interaction  space  knowledge and  able  space,  rhetorical  They c o n t e n d  interaction  o f language  language  the content  tied  explanations  are  i s an a i d t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g  interesting  models  and  input  one's  Bereiter  writers  there  the content  i n composition,  novice  model,  responsiblef o r  within the r h e t o r i c a l  and s k i l l s .  problem  specifically  within  one u s e s  f o r a c h i e v i n g purposes  claim  space,  of the  the dual  space,  when  knowledge  a model  to this  life,  Reflection  rhetorical  on  called  According  i d e a p r o d u c t i o n , and t h e r h e t o r i c a l to  offer  by  The Mohan  knowledge composition  but d e c i s i o n s  depend  knowledge t o use, and needs t o be p u l l e d o u t  39  B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia's  "procedural f a c i l i t a t i o n " i s  designed  t o i m p r o v e a w r i t e r ' s autonomous a b i l i t y  without  an  person's  input.  will  state  of  peer  however,  i n the context  demonstrates  cues  that  spaces.  the use o f s i m i l a r  of teacher-student  conferencing  and c o l l a b o r a t i o n  Beach  (1986)  conferencing  t o help  t h e use o f  students  begin  what  look  by  Students  a r e l e d through  and  audience  on  criteria  learning  suggests  writing  related  to  goals  with  trained  these  problems.  t o understand  intentions. reminders reader's  of  criteria  to  help  something  must  such  as t h a t  be changed.  (1986)  cites  2)judging  implied  the  need  by  t o be  their  own  constant  them  adopt  eventually  dissonance.  to specify  something  I f t h e problem  a  They  a reason  i s missing  i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o make a c o r r e c t  Hillocks  based  s t u d e n t s may n e e d  need t o l e a r n t o a p p l y t h e c r i t e r i a , —  strategies  students  p e r s p e c t i v e and be a b l e t o sense  problem  revision.  appropriate revisions t o  Beach c l a i m s  In t h e judging stage  own  of 1)describing topic  text-type;  the c r i t e r i a  their  f o r during  and r h e t o r i c a l  f o r the specific  teacher-student  t o assess  theprocesses  p e r c e i v e d problems; and 3 ) s e l e c t i n g  defined  another  conferencing.  Conferencing  each  on  The w r i t e r l e a r n s t o i n t e r n a l i z e  literature,  techniques  deal  depending  h e l p h i m a l t e r n a t e b e t w e e n t h e two p r o b l e m  Other  and  intermediate  to reflect  for  o r why  i s not clearly judgement.  s e v e r a l s t u d i e s which  indicate  40  that  learner-centered  small  group  tasks  involving  criteria-  b a s e d p r o b l e m s o l v i n g c a n be b e n e f i c i a l t o w r i t i n g s k i l l a n d quality. by  H i l l o c k s suggests that the a p p l i c a t i o n of c r i t e r i a  students  only  in  to their  more  drafts...that for  own  and o t h e r s '  effective  revision  the c r i t e r i a  learned  writing  but  in  stages  of  "invariant  (1981) s t u d i e d composing,  sequence"  feedback  sheet  composition. superior  Group  following 13  a  highly  options  (1986)  i n order that  are  and  (p. 1 7 9 ) .  genre"  that peer review organization,  and  1979) ;  awareness  o f one's  w r i t e r confidence groups  substantial  that  that  small  drafts  using  t o each  compositions  cites  t o gains  to  writing  by  the  research  processes  comment  indicating thinking,  1973);  revision  and  increased  (Nystrand,  (Fox, 1 9 8 0 ) "  (p. 1 8 0 ) .  work  extended  text  need . f o r  in critical  prewriting  issues... considerations  review i s  of topic,  (Lagana,  "have  peer  t o "experiment with  defined  appropriateness  own  In  specific  yielded  claims  Nystrand  attention  first  at the l e v e l s  "contributes  (Benson,  writing  similarly  reader)  structured  group.  essentially  (with  and  apparently  to train writers  reciprocity  (p.160).  compositions.  on c r i t e r i a  t o those of a c o n t r o l  Nystrand necessary  focused  work  guides  peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n through the  throughout  which  first  as  material"  groups s t u d e n t s responded t o each o t h e r s ' a  superior  a c t not only  r e v i s i o n b u t as guides f o r g e n e r a t i n g Clifford  " r e s u l t s not  1983);  He c l a i m s discussions  of the writer's  that of  purpose,  41  organization,  rhetorical  effect,  (p.  feels  i n t e n s i v e peer review i s e f f e c t i v e  188).  because  He  of  the  that  process  of  and  adequate  intensive  development"  problem  solving  involved: "used i n t e n s i v e l y , i t c r e a t e s an e n v i r o n m e n t somewhat l i k e t h e s o c i a l c o n t e x t o f i n i t i a l l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n , where t h e l e a r n e r c a n continuously test hypotheses about the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of written t e x t . . . i n Vygotskian t e r m s , we may r e g a r d i n t e n s i v e p e e r r e v i e w a s a formative social arrangement in which writers become consciously aware of the functional significance of composing b e h a v i o r s , d i s c o u r s e s t r a t e g i e s , and e l e m e n t s o f t e x t by m a n a g i n g them a l l i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of c o n t i n u o u s r e a d e r f e e d b a c k . . . t h e composing processes and discourse strategies that w r i t e r s t a k e f r o m t h e i r g r o u p s l a r g e l y emerge i n ways t h a t a r e o f t e n e v i d e n t f i r s t i n t h e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o f p e e r r e v i e w " (p. 211). Effective reported each  by  Ling  others'  use  o f group  (1986),  initial  whose  drafts,  students respond line  by  to  l e a r n e r s h e l p each o t h e r c o r r e c t mechanics,  b a s e d on  o r vague.  Later,  sheet developed s p e c i f i c a l l y  f o r that class.  components o f L i n g ' s p r o g r a m  developing  indicates  writing  s o l v i n g based The  line,  orally  i n small  literature  skill  on c r i t e r i a  to —  be  composition  most  and s p e c i f i c  demonstrates of issues.  reflect  of  skill  LI that  First,  and  The  what much o f  beneficial  collaboration  preceding discussion  a g r e e m e n t on a number writers  students i s  also  essential  written  ESL  l e t each  a criteria  the  by  to  w r i t e r know what i s m i s s i n g groups,  revision  and  for  problem  development. L2  there that  research is  on  general  inexperienced  seem t o a t t e n d t o more s u r f a c e o r m e a n i n g - p r e s e r v i n g  42  c h a n g e s i n r e v i s i o n may which  prevents  k n o w l e d g e and mind.  which r e f l e c t  helping  as  helping  learn  students  Cumming's  (1987)  proficiency  involved  in  the  though n a t u r a l l y compositions  learners and  in  to  L2  are  could  g r o u p work  be  peer  an  not  (Long and  1985).  skills  the  apply  peers'  criteria  and  of  cognitive  processes  in  I t can  also  be  a b l e t o be  skills  composing,  a f f e c t the  monitoring  explicit  second  quality  shown  that  strategies  tasks  during  inferred trained  in  could  aspects  that  of  the  learn their  writing.  G r o u p r e v i s i o n may that  the  that  s e c o n d l a n g u a g e and  monitor  mind,  capable  employing e r r o r treatment  Porter,  in  of  decision-making  R e s e a r c h has  error  r e v i s i o n using  are  indicates  explicit  that  criteria.  affect  i n o t h e r ways.  questions  audience  interactive  research  and  in  using  i s a v i a b l e way  an  l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y may  given  theoretical  indication  groups  specific  decision-making  capable of  skills  teachable  i s an  with  s h o u l d be  to  be  students,  second language l e a r n e r s of  to  there  write  their  does  relevant  r h e t o r i c a l cues  and  revision:  activity  seem  Third,  LI  of c o g n i t i v e  t h e i r writing with a reader  providing  f o r both  Collaborative  of  accessing  e a c h o t h e r f o c u s on  language  to a lack  skills  criteria.  students  that  from  these  such  g r o u p work,  due  from e v a l u a t i n g  Second,  techniques  and  them  be  i t could  be  u s e d as  h a v e an an  a d d e d d i m e n s i o n , however,  interactive decision  making  in  task  43  that  would  focused  elicit  on  the  have  so  way  improving  instances  of  literature  on  structured (Slavin, but be  writing;  group  1987)  and focus  working  task  around  and the  results  among  points peers  in for  discourse  the  and  —  134) .  the  to  the  they  involves  both p r a c t i c a l  to  i n v o l v e the  the  teaching  knowledge complete language of  and  of  value  of  learning  (Bejarno,  1987),  group t h a t  i t , but  is  expository language  to  is  may  talk  that  such  as  to  related)  talk,  classroom  and  tasks  decision-making.  and  where this  often  exploring  fully  (Cazden,  "an  i n school"  language  more  (context-related)  talk  academic  questioning,  participate learning  of  expected  the  Cazden  provides  forms  the  around  focused  i t  use  talk  in  learning.  practice  chance  the  ignored  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  the  can  of  together  from  task  classroom  language  (background  the  teacher-role,  directing;  body  complete  the  get  isolated  content  learning.  s p e c i a l ways o t t a l k i n g  Students  the  a  a grammar w o r k s h e e t may  most  students  L2  example,  be  that  and  For  of  the  actually  i n the  information  in fact  out  opportunity  limited  the  work  i n d i c a t e s the  actual talk  on  in  not  learning  of  Studies  about w r i t i n g as  increased  process  completion  task  (1988)  the  retain  I t may  that  the  talk  learning  language  together  research.  (p.  on  group  Similarly  for  also  of  have  talk.  work  contributing to  the  they  co-operative  discourse.  benefits  f a r only dealt with  valuable  does not  peers,  expository  interacting  writing of  oral  in  1988) .  the This  theoretical peers talk  work should  44  This revision  concept  t o the use o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e  as a language l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y .  inseparable "essence" will  i s relevant  from  decision-making,  (Staab,  elicit  involves evaluation  functions  "knowledge  and  revision i s  follows  that  1986) o f t h e p e e r r e v i s i o n t a s k  the  the  i t  Since  choice  of  i s that i t  forecasting/reasoning;  structures"  and  the  should  (Mohan,  therefore  i t  1986)  of  generate  the  language o f decision-making. Finally, evaluative Gere in  there  i s some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t  language  and S t e v e n s  shaping  i n the context  (1985)  subsequent  explored  revisions  analysed  the t a l k  majority  o f moves r e f e r r e d  writing,  and  next the  most  often  about  content"  (p.92).  revealed  reasons  type  changes In  how  their  "internalize they  deem  groups.  judgement  (p.87).  writing,  found  and  that  the  with  teachers  as  to  help  so  a chance t o they  whatever  Students  or  reflecting the  students  and make  to  structure  such  others  The  "suggestions  sentence  f o r certain features  affected  response  or evaluation.  work  or to give  group.  of participants'  interviews  group  information  necessary"  They  involved  i n wording,  f o r using  writing  that  of oral  i n children's  o f move  purposes o f t h e assignment, see  the r o l e  addition,  l e a r n t o watch  of the writing  t o the content  included  prevalent  writer  students  of writing  s t u d e n t s do u s e  also  could  judgments found  the  p r o c e d u r e more u s e f u l t h a n a more t r a d i t i o n a l i n d i v i d u a l i z e d procedure.  By  and  found  Stevens  looking that  at naturally  occurring  t h e language c o u l d  talk,  Gere  be c l a s s i f i e d ,  in  45  this  case  found  as  that  largely  writers  did  into their revisions a  closer  and  so  and  to  addition,  determine  would use background  and  with  done by  and  also  to  earlier,  the  interests  and  skill can  be  to  level,  academic  improving  common  be  that  use  to  when  much o f  the  principles of  sentence  been exposed related  task of determining  and  be  pairs  class  suggestions  proficiency  can  also  in  ( b o t h o f w h i c h t h e y had  increased  skill"  refer  the  with adult  a  and  students r e f e r r e d to  c o n t e n t becomes more d i f f i c u l t  usually  in  to to  writing.  discussed  in  researcher  working  found  when m a k i n g j u d g e m e n t s and  interest  consideration  this  learned  I t was  the  intentions  rhetoric.  learners  had  showed  intentions,  to translate  decision-making  they  authors  suggestions  writer's  writing  ESL  their decisions.  their partner's  As  ability  adult  rhetorical organization  class)  the  s t u d y was  language of  evaluative,  to  into  a pilot  combining s t r a t e g i e s in  text  the  changes g e n e r a l l y  p r i n c i p l e s of  knowledge  discussing  of  even s m a l l  of  whether  the  t a l k was  t h e i r peers'  information  a u d i e n c e and  In  incorporate  apparently greater  topical  given to  Moreover,  and  relationship  an  evaluative.  as  developed,  addressed  in  skill  the  goal.  seen  or  who  have  this  content. the  class.  students at varied  backgrounds.  effectiveness In  ESL  various  of  sense, If  an  goals,  However,  an  their writing  is  "improving  writing  is  components o f  Although  relevant  i t might  a  writing cognitive  that seem  skill on  the  46  surface  that  it  other  from  and  teaching writing language  speaking  revision.  are  g r o u p members suggestions this is  skills,  explored  reading,  components  principles  constitute  of  t h e background  t o each  i n mind t h a t  listening  related  and making  writing.  I t i s with  the task of collaborative  i n the present  to  knowledge t o which  evaluating  others'  isolates  collaborative  and v a l u e s  can r e f e r i n discussing,  related  concept  i n fact,  a l l vital  The c o n c e p t s ,  "good" w r i t i n g  as a "separate s k i l l "  revision  study.  Hypotheses Background and r a t i o n a l e From t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n be  isolated  which  collaborative  revision  decision-making proficiency and  effectively decision  and peers  and  between  of compositions Both  t o make d e c i s i o n s  writers  by  seems  to  needs;  suggest  c a n be t a u g h t attention  and  on  structure. help  participants  alternatives.  LI  L2  and  oral  skills goal,  of the reader's  needs.  t o make d e c i s i o n s on  particular aspects  become  are able  of  the  of  writing among  sensitive  to identify  applying  more  stages  revising  more  of  writing  to cognitive  Collaborative  By  task  and t h e u s e o f  particular  students  the  b a s e d on t h e w r i t e r ' s  and p e r c e p t i o n  focusing  process  rhetorical  audience  link  language.  knowledge  Inexperienced  the  a  seem t o be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d  an a b i l i t y  background  support  a number o f c o n c e p t s c a n  to  problems  concept  of  47  activity it  seems  could  not  a context  logical  elicit  choice). has  as  the  This  for e l i c i t i n g  that  the  language of  dimension  previously  been  of  task  of  specific  collaborative  decision-making the  language  revision  (evaluation  collaborative  explored.  forms,  revision  and task  48  The  following  diagram  collaborative dependent tasks.  revision  practical While  student-produced making  depends  Decision-making knowlege  is  illustrates  the  process tasks  material, on  as a b r i d g e  and  practical  the  is  model  f o r the  between  context-  context-reduced  academic  task  is  based  discussion  theoretical  language  a possible  on  familiar,  and  decision-  background  generated  and  knowledge. theoretical  reinforced.  B a c k g r o u n d Knowledge T h e o r e t i c a l Content Knowledge a b o u t W r i t i n g  P r a c t i c a l Task P e r s o n a l i z e d Content Student Composition GROUP WORK  essay revision  I  TALK ABOUT WRITING DECISION-MAKING requests agreement questions re a l t e r n a t i v e s advice (modals) preferences evaluative adjectives verbs of judgement likes/dislikes justifying opinions  reinforcement generalization  49  The collaborative editing)  four  and  coded  basis  revision  w i t h two  commercial the  present  study  compared  (content/meaning  "constructed decision"  textbooks.  interactive  two  Participants activities,  revision  activities  were  and t a p e s were  of and  found i n  audiotaped  f o r f i v e measures o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  f o r c o m p a r i s o n was  components  during  transcribed  "moves".  The  f r e q u e n c y o f t h e f i v e moves a s  well  as a q u a l i t a t i v e examination  of the t r a n s c r i p t s .  50  Operational 1.  2.  In test  the  considered  statement o f hypotheses  HQ :  T h e r e a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the f o u r t a s k s i n terms o f s u b j e c t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e a s m e a s u r e d by f r e q u e n c y o f t o t a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g moves.  Hi  T h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e f o u r t a s k s i n terms o f s u b j e c t s ' performance a s m e a s u r e d by f r e q u e n c y o f t o t a l d e c i s i o n m a k i n g moves.  :  HQ :  T h e r e a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e f o u r t a s k s i n terms o f s u b j e c t s ' performance as m e a s u r e d by f r e q u e n c y o f s p e c i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g moves.  Hi  T h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e f o u r t a s k s i n terms o f s u b j e c t s ' performance m e a s u r e d by f r e q u e n c y o f s p e c i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g moves.  :  addition  to  hypotheses, necessary  c o n c e r n s b r o u g h t up  the an in  statistical in  depth  order  in original  to  analysis  discourse address  research  required analysis more  questions  i n the kind participants  to was  subtle  4 and  4. What do p a r t i c i p a n t s t a l k a b o u t d u r i n g e a c h o f t h e tasks? What a r e t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r l e a r n i n g ? 5. Is there a difference knowledge referred to when s u g g e s t i o n s and/or d e c i s i o n s ?  as  5. four  of background justify their  51  METHODOLOGY  Introduction The  primary  explore the value  objective of this  of collaborative  revision  as an o r a l ,  i n t e r a c t i v e decision-making  classroom.  T o make t h i s p o s s i b l e ,  o b j e c t i v e was t o d e v e l o p be  used  oral  t o study  ESL classroom A  similar  pilot  t o that  process.  study  language"  used  was c o n d u c t e d i n the actual  also  of  The  students  recommendation, of  normally  four done  study.  and  then  some  over  that  could  a range o f  tasks  level  during in  audiotaping  f o r use  the  involved level as  of  "non-  activities. included gaining access  ESL c l a s s ;  s e l e c t i n g two g r o u p s o f  on  the classroom  as s u b j e c t s ; two  this oral  instructors  with  study  based  t o serve  o f the plan f o r data experience  meant  setting  This allowed the  (to the proficiency  decision-making  each,  composition-related  but necessary  i n a classroom  classroom  methodology i n t h i s  t o one I n t e r m e d i a t e  groups  with  the  composition-related"  four  provided  the appropriateness  students)  f o r t h e ESL  activities.  Discussion  confirmed the  and  activity  of analysis  investigator t o confirm the f e a s i b i l i t y collection  o f compositions  a secondary  a technique  "decision-making  i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o  audio-taping  composition-related class;  introducing  interaction activities  t h e two s u b j e c t  teacher's  groups  these  activities two  non-  to the class during  these  52  activities;  transcribing  d a t a p r o v i d e d by t h e s e  the  audiotapes;  and  analysing  the  transcriptions.  Setting The  setting  "English  Language  Language  Division,  classes lower  in this beginner  including  the  Students  in  for this  Skills" of  study  Department,  Vancouver range  to  advanced,  upper  development  of  department  week.  students  continuing English" level  on  into  Intermediate, this  because  department work  was  because  chosen  approach  to  compositions,  which would  in  the  language  from  skills.  and  written  12 h o u r s  have  the  "College enter  The  objectives  oral  department  Second  level  the  C l a s s e s meet  chosen  begin  in their the  to  goal  per of  Preparatory  post-secondary  which would  this  study  level  that  include  classroom.  instructor  collaborative  audiotaped  for  i t i s at this  straightforward.  habitually  take  a  College.  with  eventually to  level  composition  more  and  as  i n the  courses.  The  in  classes  Department  content  in this  English  four  must  t o pass each l e v e l .  classroom  in proficiency  the  examinations  a  Community  department  this  Many  was  The  was  the students  instructors  particular  and  a  during  class  structured  editing  hoped) make d a t a  addition,  Upper  sophisticated  using  revision  ( i t was In  more  was  of  analysis  this  instructor  these  activities,  s o l v e any p r o b l e m o f s t u d e n t s b e i n g u n e a s y  about  53  being taped during the data  collection.  Participants Participants Intermediate As  level  part of their  introduced editing,  to and  activities  naturalistic  based  to  attending ensure  composition  studies, of  the  groups  they  already  formed  Upper  had a l r e a d y been revision  in  during  and r e m a i n e d  so t h e s e  extent  class  on  on  the  a l l four  procedure  this  groups  and these  constant. study  were  It  remain  as  not a l t e r e d  recommendation,  likelihood days  f o r data  o f t h e purpose  of  participate.  Information i n both  to enrolling  provide possible  their i n this  insights  of  data  which  the  was  students  collection,  to  intact.  collection,  o f t h e study,  the p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  prior  worked  t h a t t h e groups would remain  background  an  The c h o i c e o f t h e two g r o u p s o f s u b j e c t s was  some  description  of  collaborative  on t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s  The  they  of the investigator that as p o s s i b l e ,  largely  members  E S L c l a s s a t V a n c o u v e r Community C o l l e g e .  concept  f o r the study. made  eight  the  were  was a c o n c e r n  were  and  were  a  brief  explained to  none o f whom were r e l u c t a n t t o on  the  native  students'  countries  and  c l a s s was c o l l e c t e d , into  findings  later  educational in  Canada  i n order t o  i n the study.  54  The two  e i g h t p a r t i c i p a n t s were a l l i m m i g r a n t s t o C a n a d a :  f r o m E l S a l v a d o r , one  Hong  Kong,  secondary  Iran  and  school  in  completed grade nine, had  a  degree  in  Previous English Canada  to  six  Canada r a n g e d 1  shows  the  the  from each o f Korea, C h i n a , Philippines.  their  Seven  native  had  completed  countries,  two  one had a s e m e s t e r o f c o l l e g e ,  Nursing.  Ages  ranged  from  Taiwan,  19  had  and  one  to  45.  Language s t u d y r a n g e d f r o m e l e v e n months i n years  in  the  native  country.  Arrival  f r o m t e n months t o e i g h t e e n y e a r s ago. background  information  for  each  in  Table subject.  55  Table 1 Background o f S u b j e c t s  Gender  Age  Years in Canada  Country of Origin  Years English Education  Formal Education  s "A" 1  F  35  5  El Salvador  Gr.  12  1  2  F  22  3  El Salvador  Gr.  9  1  3  M  19  1  Hong Kong  Gr.  12  7  4  F  31  7  Viet Nam  Gr.  9  4  "B" 5  M  20  1  Iran  Gr.  12  2  6  M  20  1  Korea  1 term college  6  7  F  45  18  China  Gr.  4  8  F  42  6  Taiwan  Nursing Degree  From  the experience  and  from  level It  knowledge  classes i n this  was  felt  that  of the investigator of  the  usual  was  a  which would a l l o w t h e f i n d i n g s to  other It  "general s k i l l s "  education  6  an of  instructor, intermediate  range i s not unusual.  variety  i n the study  of  participants  t o be a p p l i c a b l e  ESL c l a s s e s a t a s i m i l a r  i s recognized that differences  background, may  good  as  make-up  department, t h i s  this  12  a n d amount o f t i m e  level.  i n gender, i n t h e new  a l l be c o n t r i b u t o r y f a c t o r s t o i n d i v i d u a l  cultural country  performance i n  56  a classroom study  reduces  confounded also  task.  The r e p e a t e d  the likelihood  with  measures d e s i g n used  of  differences i n tasks  differences i n individuals.  being  While  i t  is  r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e may b e a n i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e  above d i f f e r e n c e s and t a s k - t y p e ,  those  n o t be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s  I n o t h e r words, t h i s  to  i n this  say these  study.  possible effects  d i f f e r e n c e s do n o t e x i s t ,  but simply  will  i s not  that  they  were n o t t h e f o c u s o f t h e s t u d y .  Variables Independent v a r i a b l e The  independent v a r i a b l e i n t h i s  Four d i f f e r e n t  group decision-making  in  by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s .  in  subsequent s e c t i o n s o f t h i s  study  was t a s k  type.  a c t i v i t i e s were e n g a g e d  These w i l l  be d i s c u s s e d  i n detail  chapter.  Dependent v a r i a b l e s The the  dependent v a r i a b l e i n t h i s  task  making, steps  type  specifically in  the  literature): rate  on e l i c i t i n g  the oral  the following  decision-making  elicit  or evaluate  identify  purpose  standard  or rule.  response  course  was t h e e f f e c t o f  language  moves  process  The e f f e c t  (related  or  generate  and j u s t i f y  individual  participants'  to the i n the  suggestion); alternatives;  a c t i o n based  o f task type  on a  on t h e f r e q u e n c y  o f e a c h move b e i n g made was m e a s u r e d b y c o d i n g the  of decision  discussed  (evaluation  of action;  of action;  study  contributions  and c o l l a t i n g during  the  57  activities.  The s p e c i f i c  in greater detail  moves e x a m i n e d w i l l  be d e a l t  with  i n the Discussion.  Experimental materials The  primary  effectiveness for  of this  o f four separate  eliciting  students.  purpose  the  These  language  four  study  was  t o compare t h e  "decision-making" of  decision-making  activities  activities from  c a n be c l a s s i f i e d  ESL  i n two  types: Composition  related  activities:  1)  revising  one g r o u p member's c o m p o s i t i o n  2)  editing  one g r o u p member's c o m p o s i t i o n  "Constructed decision"  The  "personal"  4)  "world  two  types  underlying decision" making  of  purposes. tasks  around  tasks  a  problem  issues"  were  problem  chosen  The p r i m a r y  i s to  generate  pre-determined  necessarily  constructed eliciting  to  objective.  decision-task  talk.  are designed  an  discussion problem.  f o r t h e purpose  improve t h e i r  the  The c o m p o s i t i o n  of  their  of "constructed and  decision-  Learning  the  t o s o l v e t h e problem i s For  has  because  purpose  c o n t e n t o r background knowledge used not  (mechanics)  activities:  3) a f i c t i o n a l a fictional  (content)  ESL  single  the  objective  of  on t h e o t h e r  hand,  o f s t u d e n t s h e l p i n g each  other  compositions.  tasks,  purposes,  The s t e p s i n v o l v e d e n c o u r a g e  58  students  to  use  discussion. built  their  The  oral  knowledge  interaction  i n , and i s , i n e f f e c t ,  designed  for  writing.  The c o m p o s i t i o n  based  task  primary  goal  situation  acquiring  in  first  however, s h o u l d learning  writing The  problems  with  learning, generic  text,  the student  B. came  of  content  from  textbooks.  that  possibility require  result,  oral  decision-  and about  grammar  was  revolved  i n these  from  around by t h e  activities  constructed  decision  The " p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m "  of using  participants  ESL  students.  a secondary  o f by t h i s  "non-ESL"  would  school  classroom be  able  activity  was  a decision-making to  was  t e a c h e r and c a n be f o u n d i n  f o r the  level  her students  this  activities  and was known t o be f r e q u e n t l y u s e d  intermediate  problem  of  The  as p e r c e i v e d  followed  The  and was a p p r o v e d  purpose  about  improvement a n d  related  composition  procedure  an ESL t e x t b o o k  activity  task  immediate  The  but also  Discussion  by t h e c l a s s r o o m  issues"  situation.  f o r the composition  was c o - d e s i g n e d  teachers  f o r the  i n particular  The  from  of a  is  situations.  both  and grammar,  participants.  activities  tasks  knowledge  academic  student-produced.  Appendix  the  i n general.  content  entirely  these  include not only composition  about w r i t i n g  in  t a s k c a n be compared t o a c o n t e n t -  making about t h e c o m p o s i t i o n and  during  reinforcing  language  f o r the  writing  a n a t u r a l by-product  and  i s content  and  of  reason  The  social  by  "world studies  i n s t r u c t o r a s an to tackle. to  explore  activity based  was  on  that  The the would  learned,  59  academically-related opinions  related  knowledge  t o emotion  as  or personal  The  n o n - E S L a c t i v i t y was t h e most  the  content  was  The  content  of  hand,  was  totally  elements  student  of familiarity  Background decision  reading  alone.  reduced"  activities,  and p r o c e d u r e s  on  so t h e r e  personalized  a c t i v i t i e s c a n be f o u n d  stating  because  t o the students'  produced,  and  to  experience  "context  unrelated  the composition  entirely  opposed  lives.  the  were  other always  content.  f o r t h e two  constructed  i n A p p e n d i x B.  Procedure Research  Design  The which  design  subjects  interactive responses  for this  study  participated  activities  o f each  was in  designed  subject  repeated four  measures, i n  different  f o r classroom  i n each  situation  group  use.  were  The  measured  individually. The  repeated  measures  h a v e an a d v a n t a g e o v e r  design  other experimental  a l l o w s t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o reduce a common s u b j e c t p o o l Although designs, rather  subjects  Because  f o r a l l treatments  order  1986) ,  this  designs because i t  v a r i a b i l i t y by u s i n g (Howell,  the order of the experimental  h a v e them p r e s e n t e d  in  (Wiersma,  overall  considered t o  1987) .  i t i s p r e f e r a b l e , when u s i n g r e p e a t e d  t o balance  than  has been  was  to this  a  avoid was  measures situations  i n t h e same s e q u e n c e t o a l l confounding  not  naturalistic  possible study  done  of in  the  problem  this  in a  study.  classroom  60  where t h e c o m p o s i t i o n specific and  order  because  convenience  a  the of  same o r d e r is  and  discussed  thereby  used  activities  cannot  be  in this  study on  in  t o ensure  the  study  in the  the types  each  issue  being  revision  tape  and  will  to  Each  to  the by  study.  the  of  a l l  i n groups  of be  The  the  editing  of  activities,  to working  recorded  one  intact  the  series  of  procedure looking  i n groups  activity.  i n other oral  could  already  s h o u l d be  interactively  during  had  them w i t h t h e  problems they  The  particular  four  students  of  classroom  s u b j e c t ' s responses  familiarized  also previously participated related  worked  chosen  for  situation.  T h e y were u s e d  researcher  the  of presentation  this  prior  so t h a t each  of composition  not  the  in  t h a t the groups would remain  and  to  at  the p o s s i b i l i t y  likelihood  attendance  w h i c h had  also  As  study  were  the  compositions,  for.  semester,  presented  order  ignored,  the  scheduled  were  The  in existence  i n the  be  hoping  on  used  largely  to  measured  worked  be  following section.  been  based  throughout be  to  during  done i n a  task  had  groups  students  had  a l l participants.  students  which  teacher  time  t o be  i n the A n a l y s i s s e c t i o n .  The  two  a c t i v i t i e s had  specific  class,  effect  Experimental  four  a  research  included i n the practice  at  the  to  related  They  interactive  and had  tasks  writing. activity  told  the  was  run  students  she  on was  a  different working  on  day. a  The  graduate  61  study  research  during other  their  project  revision  group  and and  activities  would  be  editing  to  be  audiotaping  activities  presented  the  groups  as w e l l as  later  in  two  order  to  i n v e s t i g a t e the kind of d i s c u s s i o n t h a t occurred. Tasks  one  compositions. narrative provided used  the  relate  The  based by  and  picture  happening  as  first  the  this  Written the  draft  classroom  break,  the  clarifying, required whole  her  found for  and  a  a  story  a  picture  themselves.  after  the  purpose  They  that  would  whatever  revision of  grammar  been  this  of  was  composition, paragraph,  by  the  and  the were and  g r o u p were  d i s c u s s whether  to  to  each  part  In  co-authored  by  w r i t e r of  ask  the  the  title,  At  each  by  the  questions  suggest  was  It  and  explored  information.  to  Oral  The  were  free  encouraged deleting  B).  from  conclusion.  problems  is  writer.  stopping after  and  group  and/or mechanics.  shaped  (see Appendix  one  activity  & R o t h s c h i l d , 1988),  potential  adding  to  was  on  has  (Ling  Members o f  writer  I  each  specific  group.  during  not  teacher  read  introduction,  they  student  to develop  chose  the group f o l l o w e d a focus sheet  Composing  composition  was  Students  stimulus  The  message,  activity  one  activity  focus  after  composition  about  picture.  composition.  occurs  or  the  member's on  discussions  picture.  before,  i n the  The  a  teacher  events  were  idea of t h i s  on  the  two  ways  T h e y were suitable  to of  also  to  the  composition. The  second  activity  was  group  editing  of  one  group  62  member's c o m p o s i t i o n . and  mechanical  the  students  photocopy  problems,  are editing  focus  Appendix  B)  1988) .  and a  The c l a s s  w i t h examples, the  writer  after Each  reads  each  her  member  for the writer.  classes.  In a  options  young,  of  unmarried.  advantages list  choice  instructions The  a  one  errors  activity,  by  sentence,  any  errors.  of the error  i n the  Interact  designed  a  of  problem  three  was  or  option  are l i s t e d ,  whether  The s t u d e n t s  must  f o r Sophie.  The  came f r o m  and d e c i d e groups  has t h e remaining  t o decide  option  ESL  presented:  woman,  men,  o f each  (Byrd and  f o r adult  professional  f o r each  activity  In t h i s  identify  React  p r o v i d e d by t h e t e x t book  final  o f common  a r e reminded t o t h i n k about  text  t o the students  action  (see  & Rothschild,  sentence  must  was f r o m  o r disadvantages.  of  with  have w o r k e d on i n c l a s s .  attractive  of points  so  b u t t h e g r o u p does n o t f i x t h e  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  i t i s up  list  t h e symbol  activity,  marrying  along  Composing  key" (Ling  key i s a  Students  1980),  this  read  Written  composition,  activity  Clemente-Cabetas,  and  editing  t o the error,  third  could  revision,  The g r o u p f o l l o w e d t h e P e e r  the others  grammar p o i n t s t h e y The  so t h e y  Oral  writes  errors  the  g r o u p member h a d a  2.  and marking symbols.  closest  but  Each  editing  o f which  group  Sophie,  draft  from  margin  the  after  "class  rules  grammatical  only  any e r r o r s .  sheet  f o c u s e s on  and o c c u r s  o f the composition  the w r i t e r and f i n d Editing  This procedure  they a r e  go  through  the best  followed  the  (see A p p e n d i x B ) .  a secondary  school  social  63  studies This  text  world to  text  entitled  consists  get  students i n these  transport either a  they  had  which  of  a  with  o f r e a d i n g s on  Ito,  a variety  one  route  a  of  West,1972).  o f community  quite  relevant  task,  was  of  Before  3  considered  and  i s possible  verbally with  between  the  constructed  source  to  see  over  provided  worked  and  had was  to  considered  the  classroom  recent  i n groups  Exxon  on  this  a short s e s s i o n reading the able to  Vocabulary  of discussion these  opinions kind  of  and  from  refer the  because  this  f o r the  to  texts was  groups.  descriptions  suggestions,  knowledge.  composition-related decision  solutions  and  decide  that a l l  activities  was  A  and  major  difference  activities that  in  justify  and the  based  on  learned  knowledge,  while  the  former,  p a r t i c i p a n t s were r e q u i r e d t o d i s c o v e r t h e p r o b l e m s and for  by  sea route  the  pre-taught  from  were  and  s t u d e n t s w o u l d be  not  another  presented the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s  offer some  students  were  a potential  of the a c t i v i t i e s  concern  the  disadvantages  topic  researcher  discussion.  4  to  which they  This  conducted  so t h a t  during their  Tasks  the  area  and  processes  concerned  favoured the  after  public  investigator  a c c o m p a n y i n g map  these  both  chosen  Students  advantages  preferable.  by  because  the  It  pipeline.  potential  accident.  t h e map  problem  and  designed  decision  geographical  the p i p e l i n e ,  option  Valdes  actual  t o decide which o f these  favoured  teacher  or  the  The  o i l from  sea  list  involved in  situations.  which  to  (Greig,  r e l a t e d problems w i t h accompanying a c t i v i t i e s  faced  for  Involvement  in  look the  64  latter  t h e problems  participants  During  each data  own t a p e s  participated  activity,  r e s e a r c h e r had these  For  each  of the other  where  i n t h a t day's students  tapes  copied  activities,  groups  activity.  generally  their  keep  compositions,  f o r use i n t h e study.  the researcher  kept t h e  tapes.  Tapes  were  were  distinguish so  and  the alternatives i n  f o r home u s e i n r e v i s i n g  the  students  and r a t e  provided  gathering session, the subject  as they  the revision  original  were  on one s o l u t i o n .  were a u d i o t a p e d  their  alternatives  had t o c l a s s i f y  order t o decide  For  and  that  t r a n s c r i b e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r .  replaced  by  numbers.  between i n d i v i d u a l  the  individual  I t was  students'  students'  Names o f  possible to  voices  and a c c e n t s  responses  could  be  recognized.  Coding A coding categorized coding  s y s t e m was d e v i s e d into  systems  specific  so t h a t  "moves".  had a l r e a d y  been  A  responses  search  designed  following decision-related situations:  c o u l d be  revealed  f o r examining t h e  teacher-led  classroom  discourse during exploration of a decision situation, et and  a l , 1967) ; t h e l a n g u a g e Stevens,  (individual in one  1985);  protocol  analysis),  the decision-making coding  system  o f t h e L I w r i t i n g group,  decision-making  process,  existed  that  during  (Cumming, (Ross, would  that  cover  (Gere  composing  1987) ; a n d  1981).  (Smith  steps  However,  no  a l l of the  65  activities  used  in  this  study.  activities  had n o t p r e v i o u s l y  activities  i t was n e c e s s a r y  on  features Gere  that  already  and Stevens  been  Because  writing  group  compared  t o other  group  to construct  a new s y s t e m  based  e x i s t i n g s y s t e m s h a d i n common.  (1985) f o u n d t h a t  t h e most  frequently  o c c u r r i n g moves b y p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a L I w r i t i n g g r o u p were judgements by  and s u g g e s t i o n s ,  r e f e r r i n g t o knowledge  standards  f o r essay  individual  writers  which about  sometimes  the topic  writing. would  were  Cumming  make  o r about  (1987)  evaluative  own w r i t i n g  and sometimes r e f e r t o r u l e s  when  generating  possible  problems. elicit  Smith rating  justifications absence  of  steps  by a s k i n g  be  in  which  rational and  Finally,  associated  choice  feelings  section  springs  towards  these  by  students.  the  Mohan  with  a  perceived  teacher  which  include: assessing and  ( p . 87) .  when  activities and  from a p e r s o n ' s e v a l u a t i v e  o f t h e speaker"  self-  that  and  choice,  the alternatives,  could outlined  proposes  rational  In the  (1981)  criteria;  processes  can and  questions  information;  (1985)  i n thinking  or standards  questions.  process  selecting  that about  reasons  Ross  o f n o t i o n a l grammar t h a t d e a l s  attitudes  how  then,  found  their  suggestions,  decision-making  are involved  are  showed  leading  summarizing  evaluation.  to  specific  alternatives;  alternatives;  students  (1967)  teacher, asked  the  identifying  al  responses,  a  conceivably  et  general  statements  their  solutions  justified  "since  attitudes  i t relates  to the  w i t h t h e emotions and In other  words  people  66  will  make  statements  comparison reasons  of approval  and p r e f e r e n c e ,  or disapproval,  and a s s e s s m e n t w h i c h may  and r e f e r e n c e s t o s t a n d a r d s ,  variety  of  specific  volition,  structures,  a l l o f which parts  of  include  require a  speech  and  vocabulary. An moves  initial  identified  throughout ratings  categories  for a rating These  five  occurrence  experienced 95%.  for  action;  and  o r s u g g e s t i o n based moves,  of "decision-making  then,  language"  by b o t h  ESL i n s t r u c t o r ,  Definitions,  t h e moves c a n be f o u n d  with  examples  providing  on some  were u s e d  as  and t h e  i n e a c h o f t h e f o u r t a s k s was  Moves were c o d e d  of  isolated  generating  reasons  These  be  and s u g g e s t i o n s ; e v a l u a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s ; giving  tasks.  could  eliciting  standards.  their  research  revealed that  included:  justification  of  a t the t r a n s c r i b e d data  i n previous  a l l four  alternatives;  or  look  and c o d i n g  i n A p p e n d i x C.  coding  frequency recorded.  t h e r e s e a r c h e r and an i n t e r - r a t e r  rules  another  reliability  conventions  for  67  RESULTS Introduction This chapter presents s t a t i s t i c a l data  for  the  collaborative with  Tasks  revision  3 and  activities. making  task  and  two  each  an  of  i s of  for  this  review,  general  the  question:  task  elicit  as  a  task  an  ESL  the  Does  class?  to the  the  the  research  accept the n u l l  hypotheses:  1) T h e r e  differences  of  subjects'  performance  as  task,  tests  of  to one  Both  the  non-parametric  comparison.  Next,  individual  was  collaborative  question  each  talk.  and  of decision  i t s h o u l d be  above  a r e no  these  specifically  This  and  of  language  designed  hypotheses, "yes"  purpose  2,  decision-  superiority  c o m p a r i s o n s were done f o r e a c h o f t h e f i v e To  and  decision"  overall  during  overall  Variance  used  1  "constructed  subject  of  Tasks  coded  of student compositions,  decision-making  Analysis were  editing  comparison  by  eliciting  Test  comparing  interactive  possibility  parametric Friedman  of  first  made  the  for  4,  The  moves  examine  purpose  analysis of the  to  the  moves.  explore  the  revision/editing  making  as  effectively  f o r decision-making within  was  operationalized  noted that question,  measured  i n order to  i t was  between t h e by  into  two  answer  sufficient  four tasks  to  i n terms  frequency of  total  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g moves; 2) of  There  a r e no  subjects'  differences performance  between t h e as  measured  four tasks by  i n terms  frequency  of  68  specified In  individual  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g moves.  o t h e r words,  1 and 2 e l i c i t  ideally,  a significantly  m a k i n g moves t h a n do T a s k s this  study,  equal  Although  1 and T a s k  the  same  the  composing  separate  task  because  tasks.  slightly  They  different  moves  a r e two  in this take  different  Tasks  of  Tasks  decision-  a s do T a s k s  place  procedures,  a s two p a r t s o f  they  on  parts of  a r e viewed  different  and  an  3 a n d 4.  complementary  study  of  1 and 2 e l i c i t  2 c o u l d be v i e w e d  they  process,  g r e a t e r number  that  of decision-making  Task  show t h a t  3 a n d 4, b u t f o r t h e p u r p o s e s  i t i s sufficient  number  r e s u l t s would  days,  require  as have  somewhat  k n o w l e d g e t o be u s e d .  This  chapter  correlation analysis.  between Finally,  participants' possibility  total  also  addresses  tasks  and  another moves  the p o s s i b i l i t y  moves  using  c h i square f o r each  a  chi  looks at  task,  of  a  square  individual  addressing  the  o f one o r more p a r t i c i p a n t s b e i n g r e p o n s i b l e f o r  t h e b u l k o f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g moves f o r any one t a s k . As m e n t i o n e d between  participants'  likelihood  of  interaction Before  individual making  the  tasks  to deal  with  were  Transcriptions noticeably  of  longer  and  moves,  the that  study. tests  one o b v i o u s  - t h e l e n g t h o f time  one.  particular  i n this  relationship  differences  a p p l y i n g any s t a t i s t i c a l  necessary  tasks  their  w h i l e t h e r e may be a  i s not addressed  was  each  earlier,  t o the data, i t  inequality  s u b j e c t s needed  to  between complete  t h e two c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d than  those  of  the  two  69  constructed revision  decision  and e d i t i n g  activities. can never  The  really  number o f d e c i s i o n s t o be made w i l l composition to  and w i l l  identify  activity, set  a  problem,  an e q u a l  number  (including therefore activity five  An This  considered  overall  The  obvious.  decision  not only  l e n g t h , moves were  coded  f o r each t a s k . A l l total  utterances  decision-making  1 0 0 utterances when  pre-  I n o r d e r t o judge  100  least  counting  look a t the data  data  made  moves);  during  frequencies  each  of the  o f each  i s presented type  no  2.  o f move made b y e a c h  t o vary  immediately  Slight  tendencies  made might  s u b j e c t s made  h i g h e s t number o f "R" moves d u r i n g t a s k  3 and f i v e o f  students  d u r i n g t a s k 2.  that  patterns.  s i x of the eight  eight  particularly  obvious  i n t h e number o f r e s p o n s e s  each c a t e g o r y d u r i n g each t a s k . noted,  i n Table  task.  indicate  Each s u b j e c t appears  the  o f t h e group  moves.  shows t h e f r e q u e n c y  their  composition t o  findings  s u b j e c t d u r i n g each  be  from  constructed  utterances  at  the f i r s t  decision-making  Detailed  of total  a l l utterances,  were  vary  for  since the  o f d e c i s i o n s t o b e made h a s b e e n  contained  only  be e s t i m a t e d  in a  a s i f t h e y were o f e q u a l  transcripts  for  whereas  and t h e problems a r e f a i r l y  for  needed  a l s o depend on t h e a b i l i t y  t h e number  the tasks  time  made t h e i r  highest  number  o f "GA"  moves  70  Table 2 F r e q u e n c y ( i n 100 u t t e r a n c e s ) o f I n d i v i d u a l D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g Moves by I n d i v i d u a l P a r t i c i p a n t s , f o r E a c h T a s k Move  Task  SI  S2  Participants S3 S4 S5 S6  S7  S8  Total  ER  Tl T2 T3 T4  0 0 5 1  1 1 3 1  0 5 0 1  0 4 0 1  1 4 0 3  4 2 1 3  0 1 2 2  7 1 0 0  13 18 11 12  R  Tl T2 T3 T4  1 2 10 1  0 3 6 1  3 2 6 1  4 2 6 1  4 2 2 1  4 7 6 0  2 5 4 0  2 1 3 0  20 24 43 5  GA  Tl T2 T3 T4  4 6 1 4  6 7 3 2  6 7 3 3  6 0 1 4  3 2 0 4  5 9 6 0  1 8 2 0  3 7 1 0  34 46 17 17  IP  Tl T2 T3 T4  2 1 1 3  2 0 0 2  2 6 0 2  4 1 3 0  1 1 0 4  1 1 3 2  1 1 1 0  8 1 1 0  21 12 9 13  J  Tl T2 T3 T4  2 5 5 5  10 3 3 5  6 10 6 6  4 1 1 2  1 3 1 4  7 7 8 2  2 4 3 2  4 1 1 0  36 34 28 26  ER R GA IP J  = = = = =  E l i c i t response Rate Generate a l t e r n a t i v e I d e n t i f y purpose Justify  71  In  order  to  address  t h e r e w o u l d be  any  tasks,  first  task as  i t was  on  the  variation of  subjects' total  shown i n T a b l e  central  whether  interest  to  examine  decision-making  the  across  effect  moves a c r o s s  tasks,  3  Moves, By  Task 1  Task, F o r Each  Task 2  Task 3  Subject  Task 4  1  9  14  22  14  2  19  14  15  11  3  17  30  15  13  4  18  8  11  8  5  10  12  3  16  6  21  26  24  7  7  6  19  12  4  8  24  11  6  0  This  a n a l y s i s would  task  i n terms  The  question  nonparametric disagreement statistical this  study,  literature.  of  indicate  eliciting  was  any  the  explored  statistical as  of  3.  Decision-Making  Subject  of  i n s u b j e c t s ' performance  Table Total  question  overall  language using  tests.  analysis of  method  f o r the  type  Doughty and  at Pica  of  least  one  a  decision-making.  there  variance  data  of  parametric  Although  whether  is  of  both  to  there  superiority  being  is a  some valid  examined  precedent  (1986) u s e d a two  is  and  way  in  in the  analysis  72  of  variance  various some  t o measure  discourse  features.  uncertainty,  analysed  the effect  t h e data  u s i n g t h e Friedman  However,  t h e dependent  the  program  effect  on  because  i n the present  producing  there  study  may b e  was  f o r e a c h s u b j e c t were u s e d  v a r i a b l e i n an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  SYSTAT.  This  o f t a s k on t o t a l  (F(3,21)=2.197, n . s . ) .  also  Test.  T o t a l d e c i s i o n m a k i n g moves as  of task  test  yielded  d e c i s i o n making Results  using  a non-significant  moves  a r e shown i n T a b l e  4.  Table 4 Analysis  of  Variance  for Effect  on T o t a l D e c i s i o n M a k i n g SOURCE  SUM OF SQUARES  D.F.  MEAN SQUARE  Hypothesis Error  268.094 854.156  3 21  89.365 40.674  An a p p r o p r i a t e  conditions ranks  i s t h e Friedman  (Ferguson,  Nonparametric total also  yielded  Statistics,  decision-making n.s.) .  a  Using this  moves  2.197  0.118  i n situations  the  where  experimental  subject.  effect Test  program  was c a r r i e d  f o r each  (Friedman  F PROB.  analysis of variance  test  non-significant moves  F  of different  two-way  1971).  decision-making  Moves  nonparametric t e s t  s u b j e c t s a r e t e s t e d u n d e r a number  o f Task  of  task  Statistic  by  BMDP3S o u t on t h e This on  test total  (F )=5.250, r  73  type  To  determine  i f t h e r e was  on  frequency  of  analysis of the Table  a significant  response  o f v a r i a n c e and  with  Frequency  of  specific  five  response  individual  the  five  using was  effect  analysis  found  f o r each  of  m a k i n g moves was  variance. move  A  "Rate"  using  a  f o r each  again  measures.  with  each  of  examined  effect  of  univariate  task  repeated  Results are  shown  5.  5  Analysis of Variance Table on E l i c i t i n g  SOURCE  SUM OF SQUARES  Hypothesis Error  of  significant  post  significant,  hoc  difference  (F(3,7)=33.693,  p<.001).  although  pairwise  comparisons) between All  F  F PROB.  9.410  0.000  comparisons revealed  Task  other  Task  3  and  contrasts  (Scheffe a  highly Task  were  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between T a s k 1 and  4 approached s i g n i f i c a n c e 1.  30.583 3.250 by  of  "Rate"  MEAN SQUARE  3 21  analysis  for Effect  t h e move  D.F.  91.750 68.250  Further  of Task  both  first  significant  (F(3,21)=9.410, p<.001).  Table  method  move,  s u b j e c t was  s u b j e c t s ' responses  decision  f o r the  measures F t e s t in Table  o f t a s k on  isolated  task  categories of  t h e dependent v a r i a b l e w i t h t h e t a s k s as r e p e a t e d The  of  t h e F r i e d m a n t e s t were r u n  f i v e moves shown i n t h e 2.  any  effect  4 nonTask  ( F ( 3 , 7 ) = 1 0 . 4 3 0 , p=.014), i n f a v o u r  74  In  addition  t o comparing  single  tasks,  Tasks  Tasks  3  4  and  difference move " R a t e "  Task  1/2  The  t h e Friedman  Test,  f o r t h e move " R a t e "  3/4  no  to  significant  in eliciting  the  a significant move  being  effect  produced  ( F = 14.18, d f = 3 : r  of task was  also  p<.01).  r a n k sums f o r t h i s move were a s f o l l o w s : Variable Task Task Task Task  This  shows  Rank Sum  1 2 3 4  19.500 22.000 28.500 10.000  that  t h e frequency o f "Rate"  t a s k ranks, from h i g h e s t Task  2, T a s k  significant  a  revealed  and Task  frequency o f a p a r t i c u l a r  found  the  This  a n d compared  (F(l,7)=0.111, n.s.).  Using on  combinations o f  1 a n d 2 were c o l l a p s e d  collapsed.  between  a l l possible  move  1, T a s k  difference  (Zstat=3.68,  4.  The  p<.05),  occurred  in  a n y two t a s k s f o r  c o m p a r i s o n s were  favour  of  o f T a s k 3,  t o d e t e r m i n e where t h e  between  between  i n each  done,  Task  3  Task  3.  revealing  and  Task  4  A l l other  nonsignificant.  analysis  of task  univariate  In order  difference  d i f f e r e n c e s were  effect  t o lowest, i n the order  "Rate", m u l t i p l e  significant  occurring  of variance  on t h e move  repeated  revealed  a  significant  "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e s "  measures  R e s u l t s a r e shown i n T a b l e  also  6.  F-test  (F(3,21)=4.852,  using  a  p<.01).  75  Table 6 Analysis  o f Variance Table f o r E f f e c t o f Task  on E l i c i t i n g  t h e move " G e n e r a t e A l t e r n a t i v e "  SOURCE  SUM OF SQUARES  D.F.  Hypothesis Error  75.125 108.375  3 21  Pairwise between  Task  trends  were  MEAN SQUARE  2 and Task 3  (F=8.190) a n d between cases the trend  Task  0.010  a significant  (F(3,7)=19.429,  indicated  F PROB.  4.852  25.042 5.161  c o m p a r i s o n s showed  also  F  between  p<.05).  Task  1 and Task 4  1  to  comparison favouring  (F=8.758).  revealed 1/2  Task a  exploration  of the tasks  in  significant  terms  which  T a s k 1/2 was  of  will  be  the  difference  This  the  result i s qualitative  discussed  i n the  chapter.  Using  t h e Friedman T e s t  Alternative"  across  the  nonsignificant  (F =7.54,  indicative  of  a  approached  significance,  critical  3  In both  Interestingly,  ( F ( l , 7 ) = 2 6 . 6 4 0 , p<.001).  significant  done.  3/4.  highly  especially  following  Task  w o u l d b e i n f a v o u r o f T a s k 1.  collapsed  Task  Possible  and  As was done f o r t h e move " R a t e " , . c o l l a p s e d compared  difference  This  Z value  four  p=.0566)  r  possible  revealed  t o measure  a  t h e move " G e n e r a t e  tasks,  the  result  b u t i s worth  trend. multiple difference  Because  that  (2.39 a t p = . l ) between  noting  the  comparisons  as  results  were  approaches  Task  was  also the  2 and T a s k  4  76  (Zstat=2.32) Effect  i n f a v o u r o f T a s k 2. of task  significant. "Elicit  on e l i c i t i n g  Using  Response",  =.265, n . s . ) ;  analysis  "Justify"  result  For  the Using  the  was  move,  nonsignificant  was  was  was  no  Test,  summarize  which  stated:  terms  of subjects'  the  be k e p t  result  f o r t h e move (F =.563,  Thus,  a r e no overall  finding  task  on  the f i r s t  differences performance,  i n mind t h a t  was  also  "Justify", the  n.s.).  r  of  n.s.).  i s that  overall null  there  use  of  hypothesis,  between  tasks  i s accepted.  in It  "no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e "  was  expected r e s u l t . To  Hypothesis There  hypothesis which  examine 2  was  the effect  i s rejected  terms  of  There  The  on i n d i v i d u a l  null  between t h e f o u r  performance.  stated:  of task  developed.  a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s  subjects'  in  there  "Elicit  r  the  move  (F(3,21)=.665,  Purpose",  effect  moves.  the  f o r t h e move  so f a r , t h e f i r s t  significant  for  (F =1.538,  and  r  decision-making  should  move  (F(3,21)  nonsignificant  "Identify (F =1.837),  and  nonsignificant  r e s u l t was a g a i n n o n s i g n i f i c a n t  To  f o r the  nonsignificant  n.s.);  Friedman  the result  the  variance,  f o r t h e move " I d e n t i f y P u r p o s e " t h e r e s u l t was (F(3,21)=.868,  Response",  of  the result  nonsignificant  n.s.).  a l l o t h e r moves was n o n -  F o r t h e move i n favor  tasks  stated:  i n terms o f  "Rate",  of the research  are differences  subjects'  hypothesis  moves,  the  hypothesis,  between t h e f o u r  performance.  More  null  in  tasks depth  77  investigation performance was  revealed  a  l a y between T a s k s  definite  decision task  a composition-related For hypothesis  the is  differences According  to  significant Task  the  i n no c a s e was a  but  some  i t  is  of  worth  This  to  the  difference  Friedman  null that  significance.  variance,  there  was  a  3, i n f a v o u r  approached  Test.  the  noting  approach  than  "Rate".  Alternative",  tasks  analysis  t h e move  d i f f e r e n c e between T a s k 2 a n d T a s k 2.  according  in eliciting  "Generate  accepted  between  Thus,  in  trend  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e  task  move  difference  3 and 4 and a p o s s i b l e  i n d i c a t e d b e t w e e n T a s k s 1 a n d 4.  constructed  of  that  significance  Possible  trends  were  i n d i c a t e d b y t h e ANOVA between T a s k 1 a n d T a s k 3 a n d b e t w e e n Task  1  and Task  decision  task  tasks.  In  4.  show  Again,  s u p e r i o r i t y over  addition,  composition-related constructed  were  made  the  comparison (Task  tasks  (Task  between  1/2)  and  3/4)  the  combined  the  combined  revealed  that  chapter.  Finally,  f o r the remaining  Identify  Purpose, and J u s t i f y .  results  tasks.  mentioned w i l l  accepted  represent  constructed  composition-related  the composition-related  f o r the effects  following  The  a  did a  a  g r e a t e r number o f " G e n e r a t e A l t e r n a t i v e " moves  during  explanations  a  tasks  decision  significantly  i n no c a s e  three  be d i s c u s s e d i n  the null moves:  findings  for this  hypothesis  Elicit  i n d i c a t e d by t h e Friedman  t h e major  Possible  study,  Test  is  Response,  a n d ANOVA  which  address  78  the  central  questions the  data  tests it  research  of  and  This  for  sums  of  the  However,  can  relationship  interest In  to  addressed  frequencies  e a c h move.  7  The  of  by  of  moves  c h i square  Move  Task 1  between  tasks  more  chisquare  produced  during  expected  counts  and  with  12  degrees  of  .001.  printed  o f Moves by  below  Task 3  Task 2  Task  observed  Task 4  counts)  Total  1 (ER)  13 15.3  18 16.1  11 13.4  12 9.2  54  2 (R)  20 26.4  24 27 . 6  43 23.1  6 15.9  93  3 (GA)  33 30.6  41 32.1  17 26.9  17 18.4  108  4 (IP)  21 15. 6  12 16.3  9 13.7  13 9.4  55  5 (J)  36 35.1  34 36.9  28 30.9  26 21.1  124  Chi  S q u a r e = 41.2,  df=12, p <  to  7  Table: Frequencies counts  tasks,  o f moves?  observed  Table  (Expected  statistical  certain  applying a  the  other  exploring  relationship  f r e e d o m i s 41.10, w h i c h i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t p <  Chisquare  are  by  previous  are  types  shows t h e value  the  words,  q u e s t i o n was  Table  addressed the  address  other  there  between s u b j e c t s and  certain  the  be  While  for eliciting  of  task.  which  angles.  tasks.  effective  each  other  addressed  moves  the  interest  from  i s also  question.  .001  79  This observed the  table  number o f t i m e s  expected  striking the  frequency.  tests.  frequency  This  association  between  contrast,  would  below  the  total  g r e a t e r than  i s particularly  the contribution  was s m a l l e r t h a n  indicate  task  from  c h i square  3  that  and  there  the  is a  move  positive  "rate".  frequency, was  and t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n  second  largest  (6.13).  be  so  eliciting  a  association  importantly, i t further  effective particular  i s found  alternatives". expected to  frequency  the total  association individual to  The task  so next  frequency  c a n be  contrast.  The  why one  ineffective for largest 3,  i s 41  The c o n t r i b u t i o n  positive "generate while  of this  the cell  i s one o f t h e l a r g e r  contrasted with  3 a n d t h e same move.  t o be examined  to  emphasizes t h e  2 a n d move  i s 2.47, w h i c h  task  t a s k s need  explore t h i s  move.  i s 32.4.  This  between  another  observed  c h i square  contributions.  and  between  The  In  previously  need t o examine t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t a s k t o d e t e r m i n e would  this  the expected  b e t w e e n t h e s e two t a s k s r e f l e c t s r e s u l t s b u t most  by  f r e q u e n c y o f " r a t e " d u r i n g T a s k 4 was  t h e expected  discussed,  the  In a l l other tasks the observed  "rate"  t h e observed  far  difference  cells  o f 41.10 was 17.04, t h e l a r g e s t  from any c e l l .  o f t h e move  i n several  i n t a s k 3, a s was i n d i c a t e d  c h i square  frequency.  contrast  The  Furthermore,  to the total  contribution  that  a move was made was  f o r move 2, " r a t e " ,  other  cell  indicates  the negative Again, t h e  q u a l i t a t i v e l y i n order  80  The  c h i square  association and  between  between  Task  also  Task  4  indicates 1  that  a n d move  a n d move  5,  there  4,  may  be  "identify  "justify".  A  some  purpose"  very  slight  association  c a n be n o t e d between b o t h T a s k s 2 a n d 4 a n d move  1,  response".  "elicit  have  some  relation  more e f f e c t i v e The with  C h i Square  task.  performance  totals,  because  responsible interest  to  that  extent  of  of  just  seems t o  of  one  during  of interest  contribution one  o f t h e moves. any  person I t was  task  would  show  an  applied  moves  made  words, The  moves  by  each  were  subject  during  not separated i n t o  each  task.  the f i v e  being of  Another  t o the t o t a l  to  also  by most s t u d e n t s o v e r a n o t h e r  was  in  t o the  increased participation C h i Square  dealt  differences  I t was  subjects'  whether  examined  a l l subjects for  possibility  f o r the majority examine  account  subjects.  each  the  was  move made by  cannot  by i n d i v i d u a l  the  task  a l l o f t h e moves.  analysis  f o r each This  explore  each  t o one o f t h e moves, b u t no one t a s k i s  for eliciting  the t o t a l s  each  I n o t h e r words,  task.  decision-making In  other  categories.  o b s e r v e d a n d e x p e c t e d c o u n t s a r e shown i n T a b l e 8.  81  Table 8 C h i s q u a r e T a b l e : T o t a l Moves b y I n d i v i d u a l s (Expected counts p r i n t e d Subj e c t  Task  observed counts)  Task 3  Task 2  Task  Task 4  Total  1  9 16.7  14 17.5  22 14.7  14 10.1  59  2  19 16.7  14 17.5  15 14.7  11 10.1  59  3  16 19.8  25 20.8  15 17.4  14 11.9  70  4  18 12.8  8 13.4  11 11.2  8 7.7  45  5  10 11. 6  12 12.2  3 10.2  16 7.0  41  6  21 22.1  26 23.2  24 19.4  7 13.3  78  7  6 11.6  19 12.2  12 10.2  4 7.0  41  8  24 11.6  11 12.2  6 10.2  0 7.0  41  Total Chi  123  indicate  association striking #8.  129  The 68.75  that  between  positive  was  the  somewhere  association  there  highest  from  cell any  is  a  significant  and t a s k s .  i s between  of t h i s  434  .001  individual subjects  contribution  74  108  S q u a r e = 66.75, d f = 21, p <  Results  of  1  below  f o r Each  Task  1 and  to the t o t a l cell,  at  The  most  subject  c h i square  13.19.  If  we  82  r e f e r back t o T a b l e more " e l i c i t other  response"  and " i d e n t i f y p u r p o s e "  s u b j e c t made i n T a s k  positive  person  more  "generate  during  made  Task  purpose"  1.  Task  between  t h i s person  "elicit  This than  1,2,3  terms  no  alternative"  moves  (subjects occur  1.  association with Subject  this  in  2, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h i s  the  & 4).  Task  4  of  decision-making  to  the  5 ,  (Subjects  this  6 ,  other  7 ,  moves)  subjects  8 ) .  person's  alternative", of  this  There  interesting  to  moves  moves  type  i s seen  that  activity  in  "identify  effect  Table  3  group  seems t o  shows  in  the  o f move.  that  between  note  that  i n Task  3,  Task  this so  person  that  in four  be  an  # 7 , with the majority category  the  In fact,  of  this  person  "generate  moves  large  "rate",  made more  of 3  we  came  "rate"  positive  #1.  10  Task  contributions  d u r i n g any one t a s k . of "rate"  a  made  while  quarter  number  of to  3 and S u b j e c t  nearly  anyone e l s e  task  group  appears  Finally,  t o t h e move  one  this  the  also  relationship  total  subjects  during  significant  person.  d i d other  a l t h o u g h many o t h e r s u b j e c t s made a c o m p a r a b l e  association  "rate"  slightly  more  # 5 .  a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n T a s k 2 and S u b j e c t  number  and  significant  Subject  2 shows t h a t  made  the  a  seems t o h a v e d o m i n a t e d t h e d i s c u s s i o n ( a t l e a s t  comparison  of  moves  than  also  others  and  seems t o h a v e  #4, b u t T a b l e  moves  Another  moves t h a n any  1 also  response"  person  s u b j e c t made  tasks  each s u b j e c t , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h i s person  the  43  showed find  a  that  from  one  moves  than  On t h e o t h e r hand,  across  It is  i f the  are t o t a l l e d f o r d i d n o t make more  83  total  "rate"  number  of  moves  than  smaller  most  other  associations  subjects.  which  do  There  are  need  to  not  a be  mentioned. The task, It  i n d i c a t i o n made by  this analysis  d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e seem t o be  i s a l s o apparent  systematically  from the  the  major  table that  p r o d u c e d more o r  task  appears to b r i n g  p a r t i c i p a t i o n by one  a l l or  the  expected  a l l four tasks.  increase  No  or decrease  e v e n most s u b j e c t s .  move a p p e a r s t o d o m i n a t e t h e  each  student  l e s s than the  a b o u t an  for  contributors.  no  number o f d e c i s i o n m a k i n g moves a c r o s s one  i s that  in  In a d d i t i o n ,  contributions  no  across a l l  tasks.  Summary Quantitative is  no  significant  eliciting  overall  nonsignificant no  F,  of  the  tasks,  null  the  will must  be  must  second no  first  be  be  "Identify  F,  null  in  the  effect  of  language.  subjects' As  there  task  Based there  on  will  on a be  overall  performance  mentioned  previously,  expected. for  in subjects'  and  indicates that  hypothesis:  hypothesis:  however,  "Rate".  in  accepted.  accepted  Purpose",  significant move  null  difference  also  data  decision-making  h y p o t h e s i s was  The  the  difference  significant difference  across  the  analysis  for  the  any  null  Furthermore,  move,  performance across moves  "Justify". the  given  "Elicit On  hypothesis Task  3  had  the  there tasks,  Response", basis  of  i s rejected a  a for  significantly  84  greater effect was  a  Task  trend 4.  than  towards  F  and  Friedman T e s t  over  conclude, moves  Task  there  i n no c a s e  a  the  during  seems t h a t  move.  3  has a  also  of  with  a  1  over  4  has a Task  t h e move  To  task  i n several  than cases  moves b e i n g  more  tasks.  move  certain  being  tasks  others  with  elicited.  It  association with  t h e move  a s s o c i a t i o n with  apparently  has  a  that  positive  "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " w h i l e  a s s o c i a t i o n with  positive  3.  decision-making  decision  and  negative 2  a  effect for  Task  indicated that  3 has a p o s i t i v e  again  t h i s move f o r T a s k  decision-making  particular  the  indicated  may be more a s s o c i a t e d t h a n a  Task  negative  have  task,  from  a greater  constructed  towards  Similarly,  association  toward  slightly  should  method  on e l i c i t i n g  of a chisquare  Task  while  Scheffe  composition-related  likelihood  result  hypothesis  f o r Task  a  1 than f o r  Alternative", a  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  investigation  "Rate"  and  during  a trend  Analysis under  the  composition-related  was  frequent  4,  f o r Task  nonsignificant  3, and a t r e n d  generated  during  a  greater effect  f o r Task  1  also  t h i s move, a n d t h e r e  effect  "Generate  However,  significantly  Task  greater  indicate that the null  accepted.  2 than  a  F o r t h e move  significant  be  T a s k 4 on e l i c i t i n g  that  a s s o c i a t i o n with  move.  Task  t h e move  Task 1  may  "Identify  Purpose". A  second  participation  by  participation  varied  chisquare  students. across  explored  the  I t i s apparent tasks,  but that  question  that  of  subjects  no one  7  student  85  dominated  the  Referring  back  discussion to  the  throughout  original  c o n s i s t e n t l y made more o f one k i n d All possible chapter.  results  implications  reported will  be  a l l the  data,  no  o f move t h a n  in this discussed  one  tasks. student  another.  chapter, i n the  and  their  following  86 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND  LIMITATIONS  Discussion The angles.  First,  second, to  d i s c u s s i o n addresses  a  r e s e a r c h problem  q u a n t i t a t i v e f i n d i n g s are  qualitative  explore  the  the  the  analysis  i s applied  more s u b t l e d i f f e r e n c e s .  The  to  five  during  is  to  actual  raw  data  was  arrived  the  suggestion same  tasks.  describe  l a n g u a g e and  the  decision-making  four d i f f e r e n t  analysis both  different  at.  The  actual  value.  primary  heading,  the  of the  reason  how  may  discourse concern  were  the  i n terms of  qualitative in  of  for looking  at  coding  of  i s to  distinct the  with  generated  moves  explore  moves a r e c l a s s i f i e d be  of  terms  p u r p o s e however,  there  and  discourse  One  t h a t e v e n when two  reviewed  frequencies  moves  concern  demonstrate  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n them they  the  content i s to  The  two  primary  q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i s t o compare t h e  which  from  under  qualitative  kinds  of  knowledge  represent.  Quantitative analysis Results related  tasks  of  were a t  decision tasks as  measured,  "Generate When  study least  in eliciting  by  five  showed  as the  "moves":  that  effective  two  as  language of "Elicit  of t o one  tasks  were  compared,  of the decision-making  composition-  two  constructed  decision-making,  Response";  A l t e r n a t i v e " ; " I d e n t i f y Purpose";  pairs  favourable  this  and  there tasks  was for  "Rate";  "Justify". a  trend  eliciting  87  the  moves " R a t e "  combined more  and  composition-related  "Generate  constructed The  first  effectiveness contention essentially  between  that  of  that  involves  "tactical  written  and  serve  choice  overall in  supports  the  compositions  a  task  to  elicit  the  that  decision-making  and  Scardamalia  the  cognitive  decisions".  as  specific  (1987)  and  eliciting  key  knowledge  have of  LI  shown  (1985)  students and  of  decision"  alternatives. ESL  task,  collaboratively eliciting  (p.92),  the  designed  for  this  a of  other  Assuming  designed  towards  language  in  the  so  words, that that  decision,  is  evaluation  and  purpose,  then  that  found  involved next  were d i r e c t i v e , "commonly s u g g e s t i o n s t o t h e  changes..."  and  "evaluation"  Stevens  comments made by  (Mohan,  "evaluation"  processes  Gere  for  two  is  requires  the  context  the  the  difference  This  c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n were e v a l u a t i v e  about  not  of  identifies  to  most f r e q u e n t  frequent  no  tasks.  structured  Mohan  Bereiter  in  four  with  eliciting  showed  revision  be  in  dealt  as  "choice".  t h a t the  Results the  study  r e v i s i o n can  related  and  combined  with decision-making  structures  revising  the  language a s s o c i a t e d  language.  the  significantly  than  this  tasks  decision-making, can  elicited  moves  in  four  since  decision-making features  the talk.  that  Moreover,  tasks.  hypothesis  of  decision-making  tasks  Alternative"  decision  effectiveness  1986),  "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " .  writer  looking a  at  choice  a  "constructed  students  more  most  work  effective than  a  in  task  collaborative revision  88  and  editing  "effective"  should as  be  used  effective  here  which decision-making  refers  language  will  be  The the  four tasks For  hypothesis  of  composition-related  five  these  tasks  highly the  significant  differences  in  this  study,  is  interesting  studies that  they  task  not  design  because  the  with  possibility in a  deeper  effectiveness  i t  least  appears  as  two be  tasks  here  i s that  the  of  a  Since concern  The  difference  and  for future  f o r the classroom  i n generating  as  4.  not  the  the  t h e r e was  3 and  discussed.  plays  that  effective  are  i t underscores  of  decision-making  between T a s k s  these  will  The  F o r t h e move " R a t e "  t o note both  however,  at  difference  between  frequency  individual  moves,  are  constructed decision tasks.  the  term  on.  concerned  in eliciting a l l  to  The  be more e f f e c t i v e  discussed further  second  moves.  only  well.  is elicited.  t h a t t h e c o m p o s i t i o n t a s k s may sense  as  important  specific  role  features  of  language. Of  interest  "rate"  was  during  Task  least the high  as  move  not  2,  effective "Rate".  frequency  instructions disadvantages each  1 or  significantly and as The  design  of  of  evaluative  each  of  3 can  3  than  1/2  in  account  comments,  move  Task  Task 3/4  the  was  and  the  out.  f o r the  because  characteristics  In f a c t ,  at  eliciting  "What a r e t h e a d v a n t a g e s  laid  one  Tasks  Task  option?",  t o make a t l e a s t  during  combined  combined  option are very c l e a r l y  potential  the  read s p e c i f i c a l l y , of  frequency  greater  that  the  the  the and of  there i s the  e v a l u a t i v e comment on e a c h  of  89  31  characteristics.  instructed  body  responsible  parts  that  and c o n c l u s i o n  that  i s "OK" o r w h e t h e r t h e  are "suitable",  merit  i n the e d i t i n g task,  they  the students are  will  label  an e v a l u a t i v e  s t u d e n t s must  "incorrect".  Considering  composition-related  for  i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n s where r a t i n g s  it  seems  admirable less  tasks  find  two  significantly  but they  f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those  of the composition  Likewise  task  t o judge whether t h e t i t l e  introduction, are  In the r e v i s i o n  that often  the students  the than  move during  the errors that  were  Task  was  3.  i n the  responsible  could  "rate"  comment.  be made, not  Later  made on, a  look a t the actual  contexts  i n w h i c h t h i s move was made  will  provide additional  i n s i g h t into the value of the composition  tasks. "Generate  Alternative"  was  the other  significant  difference  or  at  approaching  significance  was  found.  showed  a  highly  significant  p<.01) b e t w e e n T a s k test at  showed t h a t the  .05  difference of  to  level.  That  i n favour  four task  options,  was e q u i v a l e n t  The  difference  parametric  difference  test  (F(l,7)=19.429,  only  there  approached  may  even  significance  possibly  o f Task  2 i s worth  discussing.  before,  the design  o f Task  be  a  First  3 i s such  with t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , are l a i d out.  i s structured  alternatives  some  some  3; however t h e n o n p a r a m e t r i c  the difference  a l l , as mentioned  that The  2 and Task  least  move where  so t h a t  provided  s t u d e n t s must a t l e a s t  i n the text,  t o generating  which  alternatives.  for this  refer task  Therefore, the  90  design  of  Task  3  assures  There  is  also  discussed. suggest  other,  further  on,  tasks,  this  is  alternative  from  set  skill of  that  be  information generated  and  3  will  be  each  but  Ross  level  an  equivalent  participants  3  been  (1981)  and,  identifies  the  "identifying  He  further  a  of  as  will  be  i f not  maturity greater  and  small the  of  the  by  of  students  did  about  later,  for  the were  seemed  Thus,  same t i m e  suggestions  Task  need  list  alternatives seen  the  of  alternatives  alternatives  number o f  t h a n were e l i c i t e d indications  at  maturity:  4)constructing  other through brainstorming.  of  a  states  list  opinions 2,  in  as  later,  Task  of  on  2)small  expressed  that  and  five levels  provides  an  stressed  5)constructing  In  shown  when  composition,  encourage i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  at  Other  on  shown  to  importance  alternatives;  were g i v e n .  spontaneously  2 seems t o 7  as  has  identified;  Task  these  they  upon  on  c l a s s i f y i n g ; and  beyond  build  employed  be  generate  action".  3)brainstorming  alternatives,  to  can  will  The  decision-making of  be  students  identify  must  Ross  will  composition-related  only  autonomously  in  for as  knowledge.  courses  criteria.  go  not  acquisition.  by  the  they  own  alternative  alternatives  but,  decision-making,  required  alternatives;  not  on  skill  1)single  using  must  their  alternative  this  In  necessary,  language  first  possibility  rare.  alternatives  literature  second  was  students  alternative  the  the  alternatives  original alternatives  again,  generating  that  at  Task least  elicited from  the  3. an  opportunity  to  91  generate  alternatives  Cumming s  (1987)  indicates  that proficient  1  strategies search which how  involved  t o apply to  a  i t .  Basic  and (1986)  use  learned  revisions (1987)  and  writers,  unsolved.  It  how  several  space  t o the content  content form  k n o w l e d g e when  opinions  encourage problem  a  was  to  resolve  study,  pros  more  to  attempts  that  access  generate and  o f one's  t h e need  tasks  for a  the r h e t o r i c a l able  to  access  problem, and designed  between in  to  t h e two  stimulating  instead  light  that the  Scardamalia's  A task  effective  solving  out  suggestions,  a rhetorical  In  which  developing  indicating  points  rarely  pointed  that  i s , t o be  (p.308).  hand  operationalizei t .  information  opposing  problem  to  knowledge. of  knowing  problems  knowledge f r o m  especially  cons"  perhaps  participants only  and  flow  and  an a w a r e n e s s  stresses  faced with  way  alternatives"  been  Bereiter  model  on t h a t  spaces  "attempts noting  based two  has  helps  space,  left  studies  material.  dual-problem  This  on c o m p o s i t i o n  criteria  new  composition.  on t h e o t h e r  means d e v e l o p i n g  cites  search  knowledge  and  writers  heuristic  assessing  background  w r i t e r t o know how t o t r a n s f e r space  in  and  understanding  Hillocks of  problems  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  knowledge  research.  o f b a s i c and p r o f i c i e n t  f o r alternatives  i n composition  composition  w r i t e r s employed  accessing  search  extensively  from  "generating  search  required  skill  comparison  f o r resolving  required  tried  comes  of  of the that  simply present  stimulate  b a c k g r o u n d knowledge s t i m u l a t e n o t  b u t more  creative  attempts  at  resolving  92  the  problem. Finally,  of  the  focus of t h i s  composition-related  language find  the major  acquisition.  support  from  SLA  a  decision  while  decision-making possible  opportunity  always  to  making p r o c e s s language step  and  language.  there  in  i n the adult  ESL  to provide  this  a  (1989)  require  a  marked  this  step  to  students  with  the  found  that  collaborative  of  classroom.  link  second  to  generate  absence  of  the  to  use  the  decision-  B a s e d on  i t i s necessary  a  Mohan's  include  this  of associated  can be p r o v i d e d when s t u d e n t s have some  b a c k g r o u n d knowledge t h a t with  to  important  participants  is  participate  This link  confronted  which  require  value  a l t e r n a t i v e s when f a c e d  Brice-Heath  c o n t e n t model,  i n order  the  relation  i t i s most  original  situations  solutions,  i s on  r e s e a r c h f o r t a s k s which g i v e  situation.  real-life  in  Therefore,  the o p p o r t u n i t y to generate with  tasks  study  they  situation  can  that  a c c e s s , and  when t h e y  s t i m u l a t e s them  to  are  access  knowledge.  Qualitative analysis In t h i s show t h e during  second  kinds  the  section,  of decision—making  four  tasks.  study  showed  that  there  was  difference  for  no  producing  remains  then;  actual  The  overall,  why  f o r most  between  bother  to  exchanges t h a t  quantitative  and  decision-making  d i s c o u r s e i s examined  the  tasks  talk.  The  distinguish  took  results  in  place  of  individual  to  this  moves,  effectiveness  deeper between  question tasks  as  93  long in  as they the  produce the d e s i r e d  content  value  generalizability Throughout  this  "theoretical and  need  As  "academic  expected  the  are  mentioned kind  school"  implication  here  traditionally  terms  used  be  discourse  in  the  able  —  the  (Cazden,  that  that  learned  education potential  or  academic  threatening  their  to talk  of  has been  learning similar  talk  that  referred  ways  of  as  is  no  i t  is  American/European  and  to  home  theoretical  to  talking  There  superior  of  style  knowledge  experiences.  knowledge,  which  a b o u t i t and g e n e r a l i z e  it, is  training.  who  wish  t o pursue  Basically,  the  higher  predicted  that they  would  o f " b r i d g e " t a s k where s t u d e n t s c o u l d u s e and  theoretical than  where t h e y w o u l d in  or  kind  v a l u e o f t h e c o m p o s i t i o n t a s k s was  about  kinds  to  knowledge"  cultural  f o r a l l those  skill  provide a sort talk  through  skill  the  "academic  inherently  necessary  the  1988:134).  is  a  knowlege", knowledge",  to  special  institutions  the a b i l i t y  involved.  generalize  o f knowledge  academic  includes  and  knowledge  refer  earlier,  i n North  using  value  "academic  to  of  However,  lies  "theoretical  to  thought  is  in  answer  through academic o r s k i l l  to  around t h i s  task,  knowledge",  knowledge"  situations.  as  section,  and  the  The  theoretical  people acquire  situations  revolves  the  background  "expert  knowledge  of  of  language?  a  knowledge  totally  still  academic s k i l l  be  in  a  situation  "context-reduced" reinforcing  development.  less  situation  knowledge  they  but  needed  94  Beginning was  no  significant  effectiveness occurred as  w i t h t h e move " e l i c i t  in eliciting  a t the beginning  a way t o i d e n t i f y  tasks,  "OK. "So  difference  the writer  Any u n c l e a r  this  often  between  move.  the  This  of a decision  the issue.  response",  In the  asked t h e others  move  In  G i v e me  these  will  composition-related  pictures?" or OK?"  it  t o be t o o k o u t ? "  tasks,  the writer become  at sections  i s appropriate  message w i l l for  Is  or  i s involved  internalized; this  of written t o the rest  text  i n a process  i s the process of  and q u e s t i o n i n g  of the text  be c l e a r t o a r e a d e r ,  that  whether  o r whether t h e  and i n i t i a t i n g  a  search  alternatives.  serve must  right?  ideas"  hopefully  looking  serving  f o r suggestions:  "How a b o u t t h i n g s "OK.  generally  f o r an e v a l u a t i o n :  now we h a v e t o d i s c u s s . . . i s t h e t i t l e  asked  tasks'  situation,  "...'and t h e y d i d n ' t have good communication', t h a t good? I s t h a t enough?" or  there  In  the constructed  a  somewhat  rate  potential  three  decision  tasks,  d i f f e r e n t purpose. different  husbands.  men  on  The move s e r v e s  t h e move  In task their  students  suitability  primarily  t o move f r o m one a l t e r n a t i v e t o a n o t h e r :  3,  seems t o  as a  as  device  95 "OK, t h i s one f i r s t . Give reasons." "OK, n e x t one. What do y o u t h i n k ? " "How a b o u t t h e f i r s t o n e ? " and  occasionally to challenge a rating  "How a b o u t ' s e e s a p s y c h i a t r i s t " I s s o m e t h i n g wrong w i t h h i m ? " 4,  the  information  into  In  task  pipeline  talk  and t h o s e  transport  o i l .  with  one's  "Its  reason  regularly'?  involved  reasons  o r seek  mainly  which  1 1  categorizing  supported  which supported  T h e move m a i n l y  clarification  the  given  use  of  a  the use o f a sea route t o involved seeking  agreement  interpretation:  f o r the sea route,  Basically,  the  composition  t a s k s and t h e c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s i s t h a t  the  former  writer  In  served  and  writers,  contrast, tasks  practical  task  critical  was  between  o f a prompt asked  a  background  move  they  response  were  to  the  between  think  like  learning to tap.  in  exclusively  the  constructed  specific  and d i d n o t s e r v e knowledge.  during  f o r dialogue  participants  skills  almost  a t hand,  this  This  to  the  t o generate  any  will  be  more  when t h e o t h e r moves a r e e x a m i n e d .  The evaluative revision portion  and  eliciting  decision  theoretical  as s o r t  reader,  using  apparent  difference  right?"  second  move  statements  task,  a  of text:  was  about  rating  was  "Rate", some made  which  involved  state of affairs. after  the writer  making In the read  a  96  Writer: How a b o u t t h i n g s t o be t o o k o u t ? Listener: No. I s OK. I t s good information. In the  this  case  the writer  could  continue,  but i n other  cases  r a t i n g would be n e g a t i v e :  Listener:  I think  y o u n e e d more i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n . or  W r i t e r : OK. ' L a s t y e a r he d e c i d e d t o q u i t t h e d r i n k ' . L i s t e n e r : But t h a t i s sudden. I d o n ' t know, f o r me suddenly conclusion. or Writer: T i t l e OK? "The Drunk Man". Listener: B u t f i n a l l y he n o t d r u n k . . . Listener: I d o n ' t k n o w . . . f o r me..."The quite s u i t a b l e with your composition." In  t h i s case,  the participants  would be r a t e d  Drunk  made o t h e r  Man  its a  i s not  suggestions  which  as w e l l :  Writer: . . . o r maybe " D r i n k c a n ' t s o l v e Listener: Oh y e a h . That's r i g h t . . . Listener: T h a t ' s good. Exactly. Sometimes t h e w r i t e r  rated  your  a suggestion that  problems".  was made:  L i s t e n e r : . . . t h i s part put i n your i n t r o d u c t i o n . Writer: In the introduction? L i s t e n e r : So y o u know... Writer: I thought i f I can put i t i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n , t h i n k i t i s much b e t t e r i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n . Similarly,  i n the e d i t i n g task,  something  was  but  time  this  grammar.  Most  "not r i g h t "  (Bereiter  i t involved often,  a  readers  problems  rating  was  w o r d s , b u t an a l t e r n a t i v e was o f f e r e d cases,  however, a n e v a l u a t i v e  &  but I  n e e d e d t o n o t e when Scardamalia,  with  word  n o t made  usage i n so  immediately.  s t a t e m e n t came  1981),  first:  and many  I n a few  97 Writer: Reader:  The  " . . . b u t he f o r g o t p u t t h e money i n t h e p a r k i n g p a y " I d o n ' t t h i n k s o . . . h e f o r g o t t o p u t t h e money i n the 'parking pay'.  students  expression  was  In  eventually 'parking  Task  3,  as  was  t h e move  "rate"  however,  i s particularly i t provides  out  that  the  correct  meter'.  results,  because  figured  evident  was  made  conducive  a list  from  the  quantitative  frequently.  This  task,  this  move,  t o generating  of qualities  f o r each p e r s o n and  d i r e c t s p a r t i c i p a n t s t o f i g u r e o u t whether t h e q u a l i t i e s a r e good an  o r bad.  The o n l y  understanding  used  i n these  background  o f t h e meanings  knowledge  needed  here i s  of the p a r t i c u l a r  words  descriptions.  S: No. He i s n o t g o o d p e r s o n f o r S o p h i a . S: How come? G i v e me a r e a s o n . S: He h a d many g i r l f r i e n d s i n t h e p a s t . S: B u t why he go s e e a p s y c h i a t r i s t r e g u l a r l y ? s o m e t h i n g wrong h e r e . S: Y e a h . No g o o d . Crazy. S: Wants S o p h i e t o be f u l l - t i m e w i f e . . . T h i s point.  Maybe  i s no g o o d  S: And t h r e e c h i l d r e n . S: T h r e e c h i l d r e n . S: Y e a h . I s b i g problem. The  exchanges  that  these  ratings  led to will  be  discussed  f u r t h e r on. In c o n t r a s t Task  4 was  reason  is  t o T a s k 3, q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t s showed  not l i k e l y probably  classification  than  to elicit that  this  evaluation.  t y p e o f move was p a r t  t h e move task  "rate",  is  more  Occasionally  of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  an  that  and t h e one  of  evaluative  process:  98  S: S: S: S:  W e l l t h e s e a r o u t e i s d a n g e r o u s , y o u know why? Sea r o u t e ' s d a n g e r , y e a h . Numerous s h i p h a v e b e e n w r e c k e d i n t h i s w a t e r . l o t of ship that i s breaking, right? So, f o r t h e p i p e l i n e .  The  examination  indicated person,  that  and  most  that  cognitive  tasks  The  the  knowledge  transferable that  when  changed, become  one  i t helps more  ratings  are  T a s k 4, for  not  aware  mostly  so  ratings  3,  by  general,  one  tasks  on  during  tasks. that  the  potential 1986). on  In  something  the  information  for ratings not and  which,  jump f o r t h e s e ESL  need take  as  was  word  needs  in  form  tasks,  the  students.  be  on  was  the  immediate  more o f  mentioned,  to  readers  to search very the  is  subsequent  latter  are based  usage.  indicates  other  in  the  tasks  Research  problems  in  theoretical  and  but  related  that  these  writer  given  students.  background  bear  notes  is  the  making  the  composition  to  based  rare,  the  grammar  s t u d e n t s do are  made  classify  about  reasons  classification,  difficult  based  only  of  to  decision  writing  (Hillocks,  In t a s k  experience,  between  participant  compositions  text.  other  In  and  brought  to  were  f o r t h i s group of f o u r  made  writing  ratings.  required  constructed  about  moves  participation  a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r most o f  accompanied  are  student  rating  was  difficult  ratings  knowledge  the  basic difference  and  former,  of  connections  i n f o r m a t i o n was The  individual  t h i s person  explanations the  of  I mean  personal far.  In  reasons often  a  99  An reveals  examination similar  of  patterns.  t a s k show a n a t t e m p t find  a way  goes  beyond  the  "generate  Suggestions  alternatives"  during  the  revision  t o h e l p t h e w r i t e r be more e x p l i c i t a n d  t o make m e a n i n g rating,  e v a l u a t i v e comment,  move  but  more  clear  sometimes  as a r a t i n g  S: You s h o u l d h a v e a n o t h e r  t o the reader.  takes  the place  It  of  an  i s implied:  reason.  One i s n o t enough.  S: You c a n s a y t h a t . . . " b u t now he r e a l i z e t h a t d r i n k i n g i s n o t t h e s o l u t i o n o f h i s p r o b l e m " ...sound good? T h e n go on. S: So maybe y o u c a n w r i t e more a b o u t a r o u n d where s h e l i v e , t h e p l a c e where s h e l i v e . S: Maybe we d o n ' t a hut... The The  next  composition  their children,  call  i t a h o u s e , we c a n c a l l  exchange was  deals with  about  shelter,  an i n a p p r o p r i a t e  the student's  but the t i t l e  i ta  aunt  title.  and u n c l e  and  was "My A u n t a n d H e r C h i l d r e n "  S: Why i s t h e t i t l e l i k e t h a t ? Her husband s t i l l a l i v e . . . S: Why h e . . . h e ' s o u t s i d e t h e t i t l e ? Writer: No, h e ' s t h e r e . S: No, "My A u n t a n d H e r C h i l d r e n " Writer: "My A u n t and H e r F a m i l y " , maybe? S: You c a n s a y "My A u n t ' s F a m i l y " , y e a h . S: B e c a u s e i n y o u r c o m p o s i t i o n y o u a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t y o u r u n c l e , y o u r a u n t and t h e i r c h i l d r e n . All explicit practical  o f these  comments  meaning. task,  they  w r i t e r s must g e t u s e d  Although again  are part they  of a search  are directed  f o r more towards  represent part of a process  t o u s i n g over  and o v e r  again.  a  that  100  Similarly  in  the  editing  task,  students  make  suggestions  based on t h e i r knowledge of grammar and word usage. Writer: Reader: Reader: Reader: Reader: Reader:  "He parked h i s c a r the other s i d e of s t r e e t " . He parked h i s c a r on the other s i d e of s t r e e t . On...with on, the p r e p o s i t i o n . How about w i t h 'the s t r e e t ' ? Of the s t r e e t . 'He parked h i s c a r on the o t h e r s i d e o f the s t r e e t ' .  W r i t e r : And i s t h a t a ' p o l i c e t i c k e t ' ? That c a l l e d ' p o l i c e ticket'? Reader: Is not p o l i c e t i c k e t . . . W r i t e r : Is t h e r e any other...? Reader: I t h i n k i t s a p a r k i n g . . . p a r k i n g . . . Reader: 'Parking t i c k e t ' . . . y e a h . In  contrast  to  the  tasks required very r e l a t e d generating S: I f I were her,  composition-related little  original  tasks,  the  other  or background knowledge  of a l t e r n a t i v e s . I would get married  with Winston.  S: I t h i n k maybe j u s t . . . j u s t keep a l o n e . . . f o r g e t marry. S: J u s t wait f o r a n o t h e r . . . b e t t e r  guy.  S: And she l o v e s c h i l d r e n , so she might r e a l l y m a r r i e d w i t h somebody. S: I t h i n k she should keep her S: She  shouldn't  marry with  like  him.  In Task 4 t h e r e was  S: We cannot choose any dangerous.  of these  S: What about the a i r p l a n e ? S: We  can buy  get  job.  Students d i d not go beyond the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d p a r t i c u l a r task.  to  You  one  for this  a b i t more c r e a t i v i t y : because they  both  are  can b u i l d a b i g a i r p l a n e .  o i l from other p l a c e s .  101  In  this  given, tried  task that  both  several  results the  frequency  have  which  options  be  suggestions  a r e v a l u a b l e , one  contribute  enough  to  theoretical may  have  be  made  knowledge.  moved  indication  on  beyond  that this  compared  In  to  development do  practical  In  4,  while  immediate  t a s k was  too  3  the  emotions  t h a t they  and  do  not  proficiency  in  require a cognitive  between  the  Task  opinions  of  not  seem  knowledge  participants'  might suggest  Task  tasks  academic  personal  d i s c o u r s e because they  connection  They  quantitative  rare  time.  While  experiences  expository  based  another  the  the  composition-related  opinions.  to  as  were  t h a t were made r e f l e c t e d  personal  information  tasks.  the  at  the  unacceptable.  However,  suggestions useful  from  o f f e r e d were  i n some o t h e r  elicited  could  decided,  alternatives.  i n summary,  suggestions and  students  i n d i c a t e d , these  Again, to  some  experience some  text,  and  suggestions  there  was  an  d i f f i c u l t f o r some o f  the  students. The which  coding  provided  "identify  an  explanation  suggestion  but  theoretical  background  the  revision  did  and  purpose"  not  or  refer  editing  tasks  reason  justify  to  a  assigned  reason either  k n o w l e d g e t o do  p u r p o s e o f a comment o r q u e s t i o n , the  was  so.  reader  for  moves  rating  or  experiential  or  For might  a  to  example, explain  or a w r i t e r would  an  accepted  standard  or  rule:  the  identify  f o r a p a r t i c u l a r word o r p a r t o f t h e t e x t b u t  i t with  in  not  102  W r i t e r : But I b e c a u s e what I  really l i k e that t i t l e to f i x to that l i k e t o d e s c r i b e i s the drunk man.  W r i t e r : Because I don't want t o t r y t h i s word.  want  to  repeat  'study'  Writer: So first, i n the introduction, h a p p e n e d i n t h a t moment, r i g h t ? Reader: I d i d the q u e s t i o n u n c l e doesn't have l a n d . Sometimes p u r p o s e composition:  because you  referred  to  the  I  story I  again.  just  are t e l l i n g instructions  say  what  that  your  for  the  Writer: I i m a g i n e t h e s t o r y b e c a u s e she ( t h e t e a c h e r ) said we h a v e t o i m a g i n e t h e s t o r y . . . so t h a t ' s why I say, you know, f i r s t t h e p i c t u r e I saw...and t h e n I s a i d " J a c k i s o u r neighbor". I n T a s k s 3 and choice,  but  4 p u r p o s e r e f e r s more t o r e a s o n s f o r m a k i n g  the  reasons are taken d i r e c t l y  from t h e  a  text:  Task 3 S: How come she n e e d t o c o n t i n u e h e r j o b ? S: B e c a u s e ...she h a v e a c h a n c e f o r t h e l e a d e r s h i p w i t h h e r company... she l i k e h e r j o b and she w i l l b e t t e r c h a n c e t o promotion. S: He h a s two q u a l i t i e s : he i s i n e x c e l l e n t p h y s i c a l h e a l t h and he e x p r e s s e s h i s l o v e o p e n l y . Task S: S:  4:  . . . t h e l o c a t i o n had s e v e r a l e a r t h q u a k e s . . . So t h a t ' s t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e s e a r o u t e .  S: The c o s t o f b u i l d i n g p i p e l i n e i s much g r e a t e r t h a n c o s t o f t r a n s p o r t i n g t h e o i l by s e a . . . s o t h a t g o e s t o route.  the sea  It  looks  way  to  help  like  classify  process. for  reason-giving  ways  In to  given  tasks  i n tasks  information  1 and  become more  2  3 and  as p a r t o f t h e  i t served  organized  4 served  and  as  part  of  explicit  as  a  evaluation the  search  in writing,  103  and  required,  writer's  once  product  again,  and  a  thinking  reader's  of  the  gap  understanding,  and  a d i a l o g u e t h a t c o u l d work t o w a r d s b r i d g i n g t h i s Perhaps the is  the  one  coded  participants and  backed  criteria  could  outside the In the the  "Justify".  made  i t up  academically  in  most i n t e r e s t i n g  an  by  This  evaluative  referring be  related  important  coding  statement  experiential knowledge,  revision  was  as or  as  moves  assigned a  when  suggestion  or r u l e .  The  or  more  i t ' s source  was  text.  task standards  understanding  gap.  knowledge long  a  creating  of the  or  t o some c r i t e r i a  immediate s i t u a t i o n  student's  and  between  or c r i t e r i a  that  a  writer  aware o f t h e b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e  were needs  rooted to  be  audience:  L i s t e n e r : The p r o b l e m i s y o u need t o d e s c r i b e t h e p o v e r t y . B e c a u s e i n o u r mind o u r p o v e r t y , we know o u r p o v e r t y , b u t i n Canada i s d i f f e r e n t . I n Canada, we s p e a k a b o u t t h e p o v e r t y , we a r e p o o r , b u t we h a v e h o u s e . . . This  comment  that  would  help  with  this  ending  led to the  a  long  search  writer  exchange:  be  f o r content  more  explicit,  and  language  eventually  104  W r i t e r : OK, I t a l k a b o u t t h a t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e s i c k - t h e b i g stomach... and t h e y d o n ' t have c l o t h e s . . . t h e y a r e . . . t h e y d o n ' t h a v e h o m e . . . t h i s i s h o u s e (shows p i c t u r e ) . . . y o u know? Look a t t h e h o u s e , t h e w a l l s . . . Listener: Yeah, y o u c a n s a y a few s e n t e n c e s a b o u t h e r house... L i s t e n e r : I f we p u t a name... L i s t e n e r : L o o k l i k e i n V i e t Nam... L i s t e n e r : Maybe we d o n ' t c a l l i t a h o u s e , we c a n c a l l i t a s h e l t e r , a hut... W r i t e r : A h u t . . . c o u l d y o u w r i t e t h e name h e r e ? L i s t e n e r : I know b e c a u s e I saw i n my c o u n t r y t o o , p e o p l e i n t h e war, t h e i r h o u s e was b l o w n , s o t h e y h a d a b l a n k e t on something. W r i t e r : Yeah, s e e . . . p l a s t i c . . . m a y b e I w i l l t a l k a b o u t t h e house, about t h e p l a c e , d e s c r i b e a l i t t l e b i t . . . Even  though  from  their  the information own e x p e r i e n c e ,  to access that  i s knowledge  when one l i s t e n e r  "The Drunk Man" f o r a s t o r y drinking,  she e x p l a i n s  by t h e s t u d e n t s  t h e knowledge  information  Similarly,  provided  that  about  disagrees  prompts  comes them  writing. with  the t i t l e  a b o u t a man who e v e n t u a l l y  stops  why:  L i s t e n e r : B e c a u s e t h e r e i s a l e s s o n why, I mean t h e r e i s a l e s s o n by b e i n g d r u n k . . . h i s l i f e i s n o t good...but i n t h e l a s t p a r a g r a p h he c h a n g e s . . . I mean y o u r c o n c l u s i o n i s h e ' s changed, r i g h t ? So a t l e a s t t h e r e i s a l e s s o n o f b e i n g drunk. She  felt  that  the t i t l e  should  reflect  and e v e n t u a l l y t h e g r o u p a g r e e d on a new In t h e e d i t i n g to rules  justifications  message,  title. generally  referred  o f grammar a n d m e c h a n i c s :  Reader: I t h i n k subjects... Reader: time.  task,  the f i n a l  t h e sentence i s a run-on  He h a s t o u s e " a n o t h e r " b e c a u s e  s e n t e n c e , s o many  this  i s t h e second  105  S t u d e n t s were a l s o error-types, rule,  this  supposed t o keep t r a c k  s o when  they  was c o n s i d e r e d  named  the type  of their  frequent  of error  or the  justifying:  W r i t e r : ( r e a d i n g ) 'She r e l a x w i t h a c i g a r e t t e ' Reader: 'Relaxes' Reader: ' e - s ' Reader: T h i s i s agreement. W r i t e r : I p u t t h e ' s ' b u t I f o r g o t t h e 'e'. Reader: S o . . . s p e l l i n g . The  process  may  help  o f making  decisions  individuals  learn  about  what  grammar a n d  kind  of  errors  spelling they  are  prone t o . Students individual  also  shared  what  they  had  learned  during  conferences with the teacher:  S: . . . b e c a u s e , l a s t t i m e when I t a l k e d t o t h e t e a c h e r . . . s h e c o r r e c t e d mine, s h e s a i d i f one s e n t e n c e , e v e n t h a t i s o n l y short sentence, i f you g o t a s u b j e c t , v e r b and o b j e c t , t h a t ' s a l r e a d y g o o d f o r one s e n t e n c e . In  Task  information  3, j u s t i f y i n g  and t u r n i n g  typically  involved  taking  given  i t into a generalization:  SI:  ...he h a s many m i s t a k e s a n d I t h i n k s h e ' s n o t g o i n g t o g e t m a r r i e d him. S2: What k i n d o f m i s t a k e s ? S I : What k i n d o f m i s t a k e s ? He h a d many g i r l f r i e n d s . S3: No, i t s a y i n t h e p a s t . . . S I : B u t he h a d a l o t , b u t he w i l l continue. S2: How do y o u know? S I : B e c a u s e t h e man who h a d a l o t o f g i r l f r i e n d s before... and  from t h e o t h e r  SI: S2:  T o o many g i r l f r i e n d s i s no good? Maybe y o u a r e t h e n e x t o n e . . . I mean s o many g i r l f r i e n d s , right? Maybe s h e i s t h e n e x t one, and t h e n e x t one i s a n o t h e r one.. Yeah, maybe...he u s e d h e r . So s h e b e t t e r d o n ' t g e t m a r r i e d w i t h him.  S3:  group:  106  and  similarly  S I : And a l s o y o u s e e ( c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) number 2, r i g h t ? 'He expresses h i s love openly'. S2: I s a b a d t h i n g ? I don't t h i n k so. S I : You d o n ' t t h i n k s o ? You know, some b o y s e v e n maybe he d o e s n ' t l i k e y o u o r maybe he d o e s n ' t l o v e y o u he s a y "ohhh...I l o v e y o u s o much..." S3: S a y i n g l i e ? S I : Oh, maybe n o t l i a r , b u t t h e y j u s t l i k e t o s a y s o m e t h i n g t o o much. S3: To make h e r i n t e r e s t e d . and a n o t h e r s e q u e n c e c o n c e r n i n g than "Sophie" SI: S2: SI:  i s q u i t e apparent that  of  their  personal  immediate  text.  only  the possible While  Finally, were  information  future  are thinking  the  point  that  of the unreal that  to  i n the text,  meaning o f a statement  make that  some  they  in  to justify tasks.  " J u s t i f y " when t h e  inference  i s , elaborate  about  the  or explain the  i n the text:  S: 'One h a l f o f t h e p i p e l i n e h a s t o b e l a i d o v e r t h e . . . permafrost'. So t h a t ' s a . . . d i f f i c u l t t o b u i l d i t . or  are  decision, i t  be o f u s e i n f u t u r e a c a d e m i c  able  beyond t h e  the generalizations  i n some f u t u r e p e r s o n a l  i n T a s k 4, moves were c o d e d  i n terms  characters  t h a t t h e knowledge t h e y a r e a c c e s s i n g  their decisions w i l l  students  to  They  i t i s conceivable  t h e y make may be u s e f u l doubtful  the students are thinking  knowledge.  situation  considering  is  older  B u t y o u know when t h e y g o t some c h i l d r e n , a n d t h e c h i l d r e n s a y "my Dad i s t o o o l d . . . " No, I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e c h i l d r e n g o i n g t o s a y a n y t h i n g a b o u t my d a d i s t o o o l d . . . B u t when t h e y s e e t h e i r o t h e r f r i e n d s h a v e a y o u n g f a t h e r , i s make i t b a d . . .  It  the  a man who i s 20 y e a r s  107  SI:  U n e x p l a i n e d b r e a k s and l e a k s i n o i l p i p e l i n e s i s f a i r l y common... S2: No b u t t h e y s a y i t s l e s s . . . S3: Yeah, n o t more t h a n a few t h o u s a n d g a l l o n s . SI: U n e x p l a i n e d breaks...common...although... S2: So t h e m e a n i n g i s . . . i f t h e y h a v e d a m a g e . . i t i s n o t s o . . . SI: I t i s l e s s than... S3: N o t a b i g damage. SI: So t h i s one i s f o r w h i c h one? For the p i p e l i n e or sea route? Because i s . . . I guess t h e meaning o f t h e a c c i d e n t i s not a b i g deal. S3: Yeah, s o t h a t ' s why I p u t t h e p i p e l i n e .  Generating in  this  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n items p r o v i d e d text  appears  to  require  t h i n k i n g t h a n does j u s t i f y i n g provided  i n Task  3.  personal  experience  terms o f a g l o b a l situation about  Returning  require  required  is  similar  to justifying  referenced  criteria;  5)criteria  are general  moves c o d e d  were  often  things  4)criteria  "generate  alternatives  five  alternative",  suggested  during  using  criteria".  the  After  3)self-  people;  looking  of maturity: Moreover,  and  at the  i t c a n be s u g g e s t e d composition  is  skill:  things;  t o other  Ross  according  for this  bad  refer  principles.  at the highest level  alternatives  and  by  which  or a rating  levels  process,  defined  criteria",  an a l t e r n a t i v e  2)good  decisions  of a decision-making  appropriate  Ross i d e n t i f i e s  criteria;  "imaginary"  problems.  i n decision-making  "identifying  on  t o t h i n k more i n  t o a l a r g e r g o a l o f making  t o the concept  (1981)  l)no  complex  the information  f o r instance, t h i s  environmental  skill  criteria.  the students  situation;  another  to  o p i n i o n s about  more  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which a r e not based  c a n be l i n k e d  worldwide  somewhat  that  activities  "constructing  i t is  suggested  108  that  the  criteria  described  by  concerns set  of  and  as  a  were  make m e a n i n g one  could  to  explicit  must meet  an  to  a  composition. rule-based,  and  repertoires  of  to  criteria  move  how beyond  people"),  the  reader  Ross'  and  of  that  validity"  need  A l l of  goal  the  the  i n order  criteria.  In  general  f o r the  criteria t o be  contrast,  4  were o f t e n  ("criteria at  level  to  do had  particular  were  largely  drawn f r o m i t is  refer  2  to  this  the  difficult  f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s i n Task  level  they  and  author's  students.  a  universal  l e a r n e d r u l e s had  used  into  r a t i n g s , a l t e r n a t i v e s and  e d i t i n g task,  these  people  have  principles",  "self-referenced  understanding  some g e n e r a l  In the  of  other  r e v i s i o n task the  related  "general  combination  worked out w i t h i n t h e  see  largely  consideration for  In the  criteria  t o be  Ross  were  principles...that  (p.283).  this  used  3  could  to  other  ("good t h i n g s  and  bad t h i n g s " ) . One of  the  other  students  students tasks,  were  the  enthusiasm judgement stick were the this  comment  toward  not  feeling  time  the  made c o n c e r n i n g four  of the  r e s e a r c h e r was  the  largely  revision  consuming,  recognize  how  on  and  while  the  they  felt  the  true,  then  one  that  they  have  tasks  students as  explanation a  personal  attitude  tasks.  more  willingness  even  though  tended  that  stake  the  This  to  cut  soon as p o s s i b l e . is  the  about  t h a t t h e r e was  students'  editing  the  Although  composition-related  constructed decision a c t i v i t i e s is  tasks.  directly  about  the  be  asked  i s based  with  can  in  the the  to  they off If  students writing  109  activities. I n any  future research of t h i s  type,  student  the various tasks could provide a d d i t i o n a l  The since  primary  the  generating  decision-making  decision"  tasks,  offer  a  natural  tasks  i n the  means t h a t other  build  on  of  they  to  t o suggest as  as  two  are  considered  skills.  At  existing  provide  the decision-making  they  development, the  process,  editing  are  "natural"  valuable  for  specifically same  knowledge  a context  and  decision-making  That  already  in  "constructed  revision  contrived  that  effective  classroom.  language  student's  of composition, through  tasks  composition the  language  alternative  these  were  collaborative  a d u l t ESL  aspects  improving  that  tasks  about  insight.  g o a l o f t h i s d i s c u s s i o n was  composition-related  comments  time  base  for  as  they  i n the  area  f o r students  t o move  generating the  language  o f d e c i s i o n making.  Implications A review in  the  ESL  increasing task small  and  of the  literature  classroom awareness  the  group  negotiation  use  of  indicates that  some  certain  interaction between  tasks  f o r the  the  discourse  while  connection  language  non-native  short of understanding  interactive  that  increases  stops  larger  on  the  group there  exists  functions, amount  speakers,  tasks  this  is  between and  of  that  verbal  awareness  actual qualitative value s t r u c t u r e s and  an  patterns  of  that  110  they  can  generate.  activities  need  in  to  order  assumption without  elicit  during  is  a  and  t h e r e has  The  classroom.  of  writing  This  was  "moves"  The  decision-making  decision  done  and  two  were  at  in  tasks  or  the  support  for  the  composition  revision  as  skills,  explore  an  but  the  as the  adult  ESL  the  the  frequency  two  effective  Basically,  for  analysis during  the  tasks, to  the  that  the  eliciting between of  upon  knowledge  constructed that  was  the  writing  moves drew upon k n o w l e d g e t h a t during the  of  composition-  difference  qualitative  the to  indicated  real  yet  activity  analysis  findings  of  collaborative  to  in  during  value  activity.  was  comparing  that  decision-  qualitative  least  "expert", while drew  and  decision"  discourse.  moves  extensive  "constructed  a  language,  tasks the decision-making informed  writing  study  generated  quantitative  appears  making  by  talk,  discourse  the  of the value of  present  general  establishes  decision-making  applying  tasks  tasks  between  collaborative of  the  addition,  f o r improving  the  the  in  that  knowledge  i s better  composition  reasonable  of  language  by  discourse.  happens In  examination  activities  also  talk  i n t e r a c t i v e decision-making  decision-making related  is  purpose  effectiveness the  link  background  discourse,  more  really  written  revision  a s an  that  activity.  on  b e e n no  revision  elicit  what  there  theoretical  remain  an  recent research indicates  expository  cognitive  collaborative  the  to  research  making,  and  access  assessing  of  there  to  seems  generated body  Although  was  decision largely  Ill  experiential study  i s that  a natural a  or  the  practical  provides  which  motivating  linked  and  never  to  levels  to  been  achieving  activities,  aspect  claiming  that  this is  an  end.  that  can  i t  and  is  study  analysing  researchers  experiences tasks of  particularly  for  that  relation  to  this  provides  an  discourse  of  commercial  language the  the  that  discourse  process  contribution that  analysed  of  is this  discourse on  other  discourse  generated  during  work t o w a r d  providing  quality  people.  generating  quality in  for  of  that  be  than  previously.  the can  less  that  many  establishes  should  both  would n a t u r a l l y  fact  analysis  Another  use  constructed  called  generate  evidence  write  decision-  can  the  While to  as  language.  This  activities.  t h a n have b e e n e x a m i n e d By  making  students  the  tested.  provide  interaction  language  ESL  serious,  offer  to  content-based  writing tasks  decision-making,  therefore,  during  that  activities  necessary  study  adult  this  can  learning  v i e w o f what a c t u a l l y happens i n t h e  include  actually  a  seem p r e d i c t a b l e  "decision-making"  texts  is  task  of  w o u l d p r o d u c e what m i g h t be  has  from  decision activities;  process  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  analytical  is  the  i t might  expectation  implication  t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and  tasks  more  four  the  and  While  be  in  situation in  serious  one  collaborative revision activity  step  compositions,  decision  Thus,  a l t e r n a t i v e to constructed  natural  making  personal.  The  expository has  barely  the  content  value  of  decision-  discourse been of  the  is  an  addressed, task.  The  112  importance  of  choice  not  of  has  discourse  analysing  should  be  hopefully process  been  on  a  small  and  the  process  happening  the  structures research  or  in  in  the  step  of  as  agenda  making  evaluation either  decisions  classroom.  towards  product  such  a  the  in  terms  about  what  This  study  is  both  the  small-group  ESL  "re-vision"  interactive  and  of  activity.  L i m i t a t i o n s of the present The was  main  limitation  exploratory.  resemble be  any  To  carefully  the  with,  to  drawn  the  to new  from  a  new  evaluate  study  be  the  relevant existing  had  any  to  broad  necessary  applicability  However,  closely  system  making  i t would  the  i s that i t  i t d i d not  coding  before  results  data.  present  because  research,  about  researchers system  of  Therefore,  generalizations  coding  begin  previous  devised.  other  study  coding  coding  of  for this  system  was  systems,  and  s h o u l d be v a l u a b l e a s a s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s . Secondly, subjects,  the  although  study the  i s b a s e d on  repeated  a sample o f o n l y e i g h t  measures d e s i g n produced  measures of  response.  carried  i n order to confirm the current  out  Finally, value  R e p l i c a t i o n s t u d i e s would need  i n terms  j u d g m e n t s may  be  of  seen  as  however, b a s e d on  need  for a structured integration  that  activities  have  personal  literature  maximum  to  analysis, opinion.  the They  t h a t emphasizes  of content language  be  findings.  qualitative  one  are,  will  recent  the  160  and  language  learning  the so  value.  113  In  any c a s e ,  assessed  i n relation  Suggestions  study  provide coding  that  has  system  i n language  with  generalize  an  been  aspect  adult  closely  before,  second  examined,  the role  the present  expository  lower  similar  population  populations.  and  so t o  The u s e o f a was  mainly  to  decision-making  concern  either t o confirm or  Subjects  at the  could  to  attempt  i n the  to  present  "upper-intermediate"  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h c o u l d e x p l o r e t h e same or higher level  adaptation  could  offer  students.  of the present  a  better  study  might  be t o  as i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t context  for  eliciting  a more  elaborate  talk.  Further system,  research  might  a l s o employ  i n o r d e r t o examine t h e s m a l l e r components o f  language o f e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e .  necessitate  of  study,  the constructed decision tasks, tasks  language  and t h e q u a l i t a t i v e  further research  ESL students  level.  Another  coding  of  raise  teaching.  for a  question with  the  t o be e x p l o r a t o r y , t o  a t examining  t o other  were  other  t o be r e -  literature.  analysis i s feasible,  replicating  proficiency  vary  data  q u a n t i t a t i v e measurement  mentioned  results  study  not  and  i f such  As  the  intended  about  a n a l y s i s was a i m e d  itself  for this  a possible basis f o r future research.  determine  tasks  to the recent  was  consciousness  learning  be v a l u a b l e  f o r future research  This some  i t could  a much  larger  s u b j e c t group  T h i s would i n order  probably  to collect  114  enough small  frequency  most  lasting  ability  very  definite  language  statistical  groups  over  ethical  r e s e a r c h would  different  and  tests  to  use  several  on  the  each  looking  increases practical  in and  T h i s c o u l d become  large  months,  and  experimental could  and  raise  some  explore  the  concerns. i t would  be  interesting  of pre-teaching aspects  monitoring t h e i r  the present  both  involving  involve  tasks  of decision-making.  however,  Finally, effects  of  evaluate  complex,  control  interesting  effects  to  theoretical  and  t o apply  component. The  for  data  to  of decision-making  use d u r i n g t a s k s such  language  as those  used i n  study.  Summary The  purpose  effectiveness  of  of this  research  the collaborative  was  to  explore  revision/editing  the  tasks  for  e l i c i t i n g t h e language  of decision-making.  Eight adult  ESL  students  i n two c o l l a b o r a t i v e  composition-  participated  related  tasks  tasks.  Oral  transcribed, on  a  and two  interaction and coded  combination  compared elicited  the  interactive  of  during  for five existing  frequency  of  the  during the four tasks.  a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d  "constructed  the tasks  was  decision-making coding five  systems.  audiotaped, moves  based  The  study  decision-making  In addition,  to the discourse.  decision"  a  moves  qualitative  115  Findings present  indicate that,  study,  the  effective  as  the  language  of  analysis  suggests  that  generated  activities  i s almost  experience  or the  Results revision  and  interactive as  part  of  addition, small  body  process  and  procedures, were  in eliciting  the  the  the  immediately  this  study  can  existing  as  the  "expository  to  theoretical  In  contrast,  constructed  suggest  the  or the  decision  either  a  that  personal  collaborative  natural  same t i m e  i n the  ESL  that  has  context as  they  for serve  classroom.  a n a l y s i s of discourse research  during  a t hand.  provide at  qualitative  may  add  begun  to  In  to  the  bridge  product.  the and  presented  used d u r i n g  as  exclusively r e l a t e d to  i n depth  Background literature,  linked  w r i t i n g component  of  were  generated  knowledge.  decision-making  the  the  described  is  during  editing  the  be  which  task of  language  can  background  language  of  tasks  Moreover,  the  tasks  language  generalizable  conditions  decision tasks  decision-making.  or  the  composition-related  constructed  composition-related talk",  under  the  to  the  problem,  description details in  of  previous  the  of  the  a  research  information  chapters.  procedures are  review  contained  of  related  design  summarized  Copies i n the  of  and above  materials  appendices.  116  REFERENCES B e a c h , R. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Demonstrating techniques f o r a s s e s s i n g w r i t i n g i n the w r i t i n g classroom. College Composition and C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 37, 1, 56-65. B e j a r n o , Y. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A c o o p e r a t i v e small-group methodology i n the language classroom. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 21, 3, 483-501. B e n t o n , S. & Blohm, P. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . E f f e c t o f q u e s t i o n t y p e and p o s i t i o n on m e a s u r e s o f c o n c e p t u a l e l a b o r a t i o n i n writing. R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 20, 1, 98-108. B e r e i t e r , C. & S c a r d a m a l i a , M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . From c o n v e r s a t i o n to composition: the r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a developmental p r o c e s s . In R. G l a z e r (Ed.) A d v a n c e s i n I n s t r u c t i o n a l Psychology. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: L a w r e n c e Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1-64. B e r e i t e r , C. & S c a r d a m a l i a , M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The P s y c h o l o g y o f Written Composition. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bowers, B. and Ontario:  G o d f r e y , J . (1983). Dominie P r e s s L t d .  Decisions. Agincourt,  Brice  H e a t h , S. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Speech Genres Matters. P l e n a r y A d d r e s s , 1989 Calgary, Alberta.  Brock,  C. ESL 58.  (1986). The e f f e c t s classroom discourse.  and Other Life Course TESL Canada C o n f e r e n c e  o f r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s on TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 20, 1, 47-  Brown, G. e t a l . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Teaching Talk. Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Byrd,  D. & C l e m e n t e - C a b e t a s , NY: R e g e n t s P u b l i s h i n g  I . (1980). Company  Cambridge: React  Interact.  C a r r e l l , P. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Some i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t e x t a n a l y s i s and r e a d i n g r e s e a r c h f o r ESL c o m p o s i t i o n . I n U. C o n n o r and R. K a p l a n (Eds.) W r i t i n g A c r o s s L a n g u a g e s : A n a l y s i s o f L2 T e x t . R e a d i n g MA: A d d i s o n W e s l e y . C a z d e n , C. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . C l a s s r o o m D i s c o u r s e / The Language o f T e a c h i n g and L e a r n i n g . P o r t s m o u t h , NH: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books, I n c .  117 C l i f f o r d , J . (1981). Composing i n s t a g e s : t h e e f f e c t s o f a c o l l a b o r a t i v e pedagogy. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h . 15, 1, 37-53. C o n n o r , U. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Research f r o n t i e r s i n w r i t i n g TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 21, 4, 677-695.  analysis.  Cumming, A. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . W r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y i n ESL p e r f o r m a n c e . Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. Cummins, J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Language p r o f i c i e n c y , b i l i n g u a l i s m and academic achievement. I n B i l i n g u a l i s m and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n and Pedagogy. College H i l l Press. Doughty, C. & P i c a , T. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . " I n f o r m a t i o n gap" t a s k s : t h e y f a c i l i t a t e s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n ? TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 20, 2, 305-325.  do  F a i g l e y , L. & W i t t e , S. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Analysing revision. College C o m p o s i t i o n and C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 32, 4, 400-414. F e r g u s o n , G. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Statistical E d u c a t i o n . NY: McGraw H i l l ,  Analysis Inc.  i n Psychology  and  F l o w e r , L. & H a y e s , J . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . A cognitive process theory of w r i t i n g . C o l l e g e C o m p o s i t i o n and C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 32, 4, 365-387. Gere,  A. & S t e v e n s , R. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The l a n g u a g e o f w r i t i n g g r o u p s : how o r a l r e s p o n s e s h a p e s r e v i s i o n . In S. Freeman (Ed.) The A c g u i s i t i o n o f W r i t t e n L a n g u a g e . Ablex, 85-105.  G r e i g J . , I t o , R., West, I . ( 1 9 7 2 ) . I n v o l v e m e n t . Ryerson Social Science Series. T o r o n t o : McGraw H i l l R y e r s o n L t d . 67-68. H i l l o c k s , G. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . R e s e a r c h on W r i t t e n C o m p o s i t i o n . Urbana, I L : E r i c C l e a r i n g h o u s e on R e a d i n g and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s , NCRE. H o w e l l , D.C. (1987). Statistical B o s t o n : Duxbury P r e s s .  methods f o r p s y c h o l o g y .  Ling,  S. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Responding t o p r o d u c t i n t h e composing process. T E S L Canada J o u r n a l . 4, 1, 65-75.  Ling,  S. & R o t h s c h i l d , D. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . O r a l and W r i t t e n Composing. V a n c o u v e r Community C o l l e g e .  L o n g , M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . I n p u t , i n t e r a c t i o n , and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e acquisition. I n N a t i v e l a n g u a g e and f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n , H a r r i s W i n i t z (Ed.) A n n a l s o f t h e New Y o r k Academy o f S c i e n c e s . 379, 250-278. L o n g , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . A r o l e f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n second language acquisition: Task-basked language t e a c h i n g . In K. H y l t e r s t o n and Pienemann, M. (Eds.) M o d e l l i n g and A s s e s s i n g S e c o n d Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Avon: M u l t i l i n g u a l M a t t e r s , 77-99. L o n g , M. and P o r t e r , P. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Group work, i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k , and s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 19, 2, 207-228. M a r t l e w , M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . P r o b l e m s and d i f f i c u l t i e s : c o g n i t i v e aspects of writing. I n M. M a r t l e w ( E d . ) . The P s y c h o l o g y o f W r i t t e n Language. C h i c h e s t e r : John W i l e y & Sons L t d . , 295-333. Mayher, J . , L e s t e r , N. & P r a d l , G. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Learning to Write/Writing t o Learn. U p p e r M o n t c l a i r , NJ: Boynton/Cook P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . Mohr, M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . R e v i s i o n : The Rhythm o f M e a n i n g . M o n t c l a i r , NJ: B o y n t o n / C o o k P u b l i s h e r s , I n c .  Upper  Mohan, B. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Language and A d d i s o n Wesley P u b l i s h i n g  MA:  Nold,  Content. Company.  Reading,  E. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Revising. I n C. F r e d e r i k s e n and J . F . D o m i n i c (Eds.) W r i t i n g : The N a t u r e . D e v e l o p m e n t , and T e a c h i n g o f W r i t t e n C o m m u n i c a t i o n V o l . 2. Hillsdale, NJ: L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m , 68-77.  N o l d , E. (1982). I n t e n t i o n s and c o n v e n t i o n s . I n R. A. S u d o l (Ed.) Revising. E r i c C l e a r i n g h o u s e on R e a d i n g and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s , NIE, 13-23. N y s t r a n d , M. (1986) . The S t r u c t u r e o f W r i t t e n C o m m u n i c a t i o n Orlando: Academic P r e s s , Inc. Ochoa, A. and S h u s t e r , S. (1980) . S o c i a l S t u d i e s i n t h e Mainstreamed Classroom. B o u l d e r : ERIC C l e a r i n g h o u s e for Social Studies/Social Science Education. P e r e r a , K. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . C h i l d r e n ' s W r i t i n g and R e a d i n g A n a l y s i n g C l a s s r o o m Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Ltd. Pica,  T. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . a c t i o n , and 2-21.  Second language the classroom.  acquisition, social inter A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 8, 1  119  Pica,  T. & D o u g h t y , C . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . I n p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h e communicative language classroom: a comparison o f t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d and g r o u p a c t i v i t i e s . I n S. G a s s and C. Madden (Eds.) I n p u t and S e c o n d L a n g u a g e Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 115-132.  Ross,  J . (1981). Improving a d o l e s c e n t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g skills. C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y . 11, 3, 279-295.  S l a v i n , R. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . C o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g and t h e c o o p e r a t i v e school. E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p . 45, 3, 7-13. S m i t h , B., Meux, M., Coombs, J . & P r e c i a n s , R. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . A Study o f the S t r a t e g i e s o f Teaching. Urbana, I L : Bureau o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research, C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , University of I l l i n o i s . S o c i a l S t u d i e s R e s o u r c e M a n u a l G r a d e s 4-7. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n . S m i t h , B. & Meux, M.(197 0 ) . A S t u d y o f t h e L o g i c o f Teaching. I l l i n o i s : University of I l l i n o i s Press. Smith,  G. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . R e v i s i o n and improvement: making t h e connection. I n R.A. S u d o l ( E d . ) . Revising. Eric C l e a r i n g h o u s e on R e a d i n g and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s , 132-139.  S w a i n , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Communicative competence: some r o l e s o f c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t and c o m p r e h e n s i b l e o u t p u t i n i t s development. I n S. G a s s and C. Madden (Eds.) I n p u t and S e c o n d Language D e v e l o p m e n t . Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235-253. S w a i n , M. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . M a n i p u l a t i n g and c o m p l e m e n t i n g c o n t e n t t e a c h i n g t o maximize second language l e a r n i n g . TESL Canada J o u r n a l . 6, 1, 68-83. Staab,  C. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . E l i c i t i n g the language f u n c t i o n o f f o r e c a s t i n g / r e a s o n i n g i n elementary classrooms. A l b e r t a J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 32, 2, 126.  The 109-  T u c k e r , R. and D ' A n g l e j a n , A. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . New d i r e c t i o n s i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g . I n R.C. T r o i k e and N. M o d i a n o (eds) P r o c e e d i n g o f t h e F i r s t I n t e r A m e r i c a n C o n f e r e n c e on B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n , 63-72. A r l i n g t o n , VA: C e n t e r f o r A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . Wiersma, W. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . R e s e a r c h M e t h o d s i n E d u c a t i o n . Newton, MA: A l l y n and Bacon, I n c .  121  ( O r a l and W r i t t e n  APPENDIX B T a s k 1: R e v i s i o n Composing. L i n g & R o t h s c h i l d ,  STUDENTS PAGE  1988)  T O REVISE D R A F T 1  (NARRATIVE)  Students sit in a group with a tape-recorder on. STEPS:  1.  WRITER  LISTENERS  READS: TITLE of composition.  PREDICT: Maybe this composition is about  INTRODUCTION. (Paragraph 1)  DISCUSS:  YES  NO  A Suitable? IF N O T , D E L E T E / A D D .  3.  Body of composition PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH  (WHAT?)  D I S C U S S : Paragraphs"?, 3,4, 5, etc. A  It is mostly about  B. Information missing on REPEATED C . Unclear pictures on  REPEATS/EXPLAINS, IF N E C E S S A R Y .  CONCLUSION (last paragraph)  D. Things to be taken out Q U E S T I O N WRITER, IF N E C E S S A R Y .  DISCUSS: A Suitable? IF N O T , D E L E T E / A D D -  DISCUSS T O G E T H E R T H E COMPOSITION A S F O L L O W S : A Is the title O K ? Why/Why not? B. What do you like best about the writing? WRITER, using tape, rewrites into draft 2. Keeps it for editing.  YES  |  NO  122  ( O r a l and W r i t t e n  STUDENTS PAGE  T a s k 2: E d i t i n g Composing, L i n g & R o t h s c h i l d ,  ,  1988)  T E C H N I Q U E T O EDIT: P E E R EDITING  BEFORE CLASS: 1. A . Give your teacher draft 2 (the revised draft) so that he can make enough photocopies for your group.  S T E P S IN C L A S S : 1. B. Sit in a group. Make sure you have i. a good "grammarian" and a good "speller" in your group; ii. a dictionary, a grammar reference book and the class editing key on the table.  G R O U P (called editors)  2. The WRITER (the chief editori Gives a copy of his draft 2 to  3. A . Reads aloud one sentence. Stops. Asks, "Is it OK?"  >-  •  B. If not OK, writes the symbol in the margin on the line where the error is.  each editor in the group  Listens and says "Yes/No"  Does the same as the chief editor.  If O K , continues with the next sentence. C . When vou are not sure or when you disaaree. i. Use your grammar book and the dictionary; ii. Write down what the group thinks is best, for the time being; O R iii. Put question marks in the margin and ask the teacher later on, or at Conferencing time. N O T E : You may not be able to find all the mistakes, but you will find some.  4. When the writer finishes editing his draft 2, he becomes one of the editors in the group  >-  5. Choose another student's draft 2. Follow steps 2 - 4 above.  _  123  3: ESL I n t e r a c t i v e A c t i v i t y " S o p h i e ' s Dilemma" (React I n t e r a c t . Byrd & Clemente Cabetas, 1 9 8 0 ) Task  Sophie is a beautiful and intelligent young .career woman. She works at an international publishing company. Her job is editing writers' manuscripts. Since traveling is an important part of her work, she has already seen many parts of the world. Through her work and travel, she has met many single men who are interested in her romantically. Flight now she feels a little troubled because three men, Derek, Winston, and Ethan, want to marry her. She also feels a commitment to continue her career. Her options are as follows:  M A R R Y WINSTON  M A R R Y DEREK 1 Handsome young actor; doesn't have much money " 2 Expresses his love openly 3 Takes her to plays when he can get free tickets 4 Gives her lovely gifts for her apartment 5 Ambitious and egoistic 6 Had many girlfriends in the past 7 In excellent physical health 8 Wants Sophie to continue working  1 Rich aider industrialist 2 Always kind to her but never talks of love 3 Takes her to chic places 4 Gives her expensive jewelry 5 Conservative and established 6 Two previous marriages; three grown children 7 In good health; twenty years older than Sophie 8 Wants Sophie to be a full-time wife  MARRY ETHAN  CONTINUE HER C A R E E R  • 1 Young, middle-class professor 2 Writes love poems to her 3 Takes her for long walks and to concerts. 4 Brings her flowers that he has picked himself 5 Quiet, serious, and intelligent 6 Had one love affair that lasted five years 7 In good physical health; sees a psychiatrist regularly 8 Wants Sophie to make her own decision about her career  1 The chance for leadership with her company 2 Exciting and interesting work 3 Has her own money in the bank 4 Can travel anytime she wants to 5 Occasionally lonely 6 Loves children but has little time for them now 7 Enjoys an active, changing life  INSTRUCTIONS Look a t Sophie's o p t i o n s . Decide what she should do. What a r e the advantages/disadvantages o f each o p t i o n ? Each student should s t a t e h i s or her o p i n i o n about which man Sophie should marry o r whether she should remain s i n g l e . Give reasons f o r your o p i n i o n . Try  t o reach a group d e c i s i o n t o the problem.  A huge oil discovery has been made near the northern outpost of Tern Inlet. The discovery is In a corner of Zanaland that Is cut off from the rest of the country by a high range of mountains. Two plans have been proposed to move the oil to large refineries In the southern part of Zanaland where most of the people of the country live. The first plan calls for port facilities to be built at Tern Inlet from which huge tankers, capable of carrying millions of gallons, will be loaded for the trip to the city of Port Race. These ships will follow the coast of the Republic of Kel, but will travel the whole route in International waters. The second plan suggests the building of a pipeline from Tern Inlet across Kel to refineries at Zana. Here are some of the facts and opinions that have been presented. The area In which the oil is located has had severe earthquakes capable of destroying port facilities and breaking pipelines. The sea route is dangerous. Numerous ships have been wrecked In these waters. Ocean currents and wind along many parts of the coastline are on-shore. Almost one-half of the pipeline has to be laid over permafrost. Experiments have suggested the the oil can be heated to make it flow, but the pipeline must be insulated to prevent damage to the frozen surface. The pipeline route follows the rivers. One of these rivers is th# spawning ground of»a rare fish. Pollution of this river will exterminate the fish. The cost of building the pipeline is much greater than the cost of transporting the oil by sea. Many people In Kel make their living by fishing and from tourists. Scientists have stated that oil spills In the ocean will severely damage marine life along the coast. • Scientists believe that the huge machines required to build the pipeline could create gashes In the soft covering of the frozen land which may never repair themselves.  Unexplained breaks and leaks in oil pipelines are fairly common although the spills are usually no more than a few thousand gallons. The Government and most of the people of Kel are strongly opposed to the sea route. They can do nothing to prevent the Government of Zanaland from using tins plan if that decision Ss made. Suppose that your group must advise the Prime Minister of Zanaland regarding which plan his country should follow. You are Zanalanders. The following map will be useful in developing your recommendations.  125  APPENDIX C D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g Moves: D e f i n i t i o n s , E x a m p l e s and C o d i n g Conventions  Notes: 1. A d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g move i s d e f i n e d a s a n u t t e r a n c e w h i c h s e r v e s some p u r p o s e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n about a problem. An u t t e r a n c e i s a t h o u g h t o r m e a n i n g u n i t , not n e c e s s a r i l y a complete sentence. 2. O n l y u t t e r a n c e s r e l a t e d t o m a k i n g a d e c i s i o n a b o u t t h e t a s k were c o d e d . D i s c u s s i o n o f c l a s s o r task procedure, and p e r s o n a l r e m a r k s u n r e l a t e d t o t h e t a s k a r e n o t c o d e d . 3. E x a c t o r n e a r e x a c t r e p e t i t i o n s o f a n p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e a r e not coded.  The  decision-making  moves u n d e r s t u d y  immediately  were:  1. E l i c i t R e s p o n s e ( E R ) : U s e d t o e l i c i t a l t e r n a t i v e s , e v a l u a t i v e statements o r information, o r t o i d e n t i f y problem; u s u a l l y i n q u e s t i o n form.  a  F u n c t i o n s : d e t e c t i n g problems, p r o p o s i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s Structure: questions re alternatives, requests, vocabulary  a)  b)  eliciting  alternatives or opinions re  -  "How  -  "Should  -  "How  -  "Which one do y o u a g r e e t o b u i l d ? "  reasons  c a n I change i t ? " be "A Drunk Man" o r "The Drunk Man"?"  come s h e n e e d s t o c o n t i n u e  eliciting  evaluative  her job?"  statements  -  " I s t h e grammar OK?"  -  "Is the t i t l e suitable"?  -  "Do y o u t h i n k he i s a g o o d p e r s o n  -  "Which one i s b e t t e r ? "  f o r her"?  126  c)  d)  i d e n t i f y i n g a s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m - (may s e r v e t o e l i c i t e v a l u a t i o n s o r a l t e r n a t i v e s as well) -  " E x c u s e me, y o u s a i d t h e r e a r e two r e a s o n s t o d i v o r c e . . . y o u s a i d o n l y one r e a s o n . . . w h a t was t h e other reason?"  -  "Do we n e e d 'one d a y ' a n d a comma?" (a s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n s t h e w r i t e r ' s u s e o f a comma f o l l o w i n g t h e p h r a s e "one d a y " )  -  "What a b o u t "Sees a p s y c h i a t r i s t r e g u l a r l y ? " ( t h e t e x t o f T a s k 3 i n f o r m s t h a t one o f t h e men t h e y are c o n s i d e r i n g "sees a p s y c h i a t r i s t r e g u l a r l y " t h e s t u d e n t i s b r i n g i n g t h i s up a s a p o s s i b l e problem)  eliciting -  "How do y o u s p e l l  -  "Is that called  Can  2.  information necessary  a l s o be a r e q u e s t -  "OK.  -  " G i v e me a  t o s o l v e t h e problem  'meter'"?  "police  ticket'"?  i n the imperative  form:  G i v e me i d e a s . " reason."  R a t e ( R ) : An e v a l u a t i v e s t a t e m e n t s e r v i n g t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t , i d e n t i f y a new p r o b l e m , o r d i s a g r e e w i t h a n alternative.  Functions: Structure:  evaluating, ranking, judging, c r i t i c i z i n g e v a l u a t i v e a d j e c t i v e s , v e r b s o f judgment  a) make a p o s i t i v e  statement  -  "Nice t i t l e .  -  "Ethan i s t h e b e s t  -  "Past tense  (give  Great." choice."  i s right."  support)  b)  c)  identify  a problem  initially  -  " I t h i n k i t i s a run-on  -  "But t h i s  -  "The s p e l l i n g  -  "20 y e a r s  respond -  i s a total  sentence."  unclear picture,  y o u know?"  i s wrong."  o l d e r than  S o p h i e . . . i s n o t good."  n e g a t i v e l y t o an a l t e r n a t i v e  (disagree)  " I do n o t a g r e e . "  - "Money? I s n o t g o o d r e a s o n . " ( r e s p o n s e t o "Maybe t h e y d i d n ' t h a v e enough  money."  - "No, t h a t ' s t o o weak." (response t o a suggestion g i v e n t o a w r i t e r ) - That i s n o t a bad t h i n g . ( r e s p o n s e t o "He e x p r e s s e s h i s l o v e  openly.")  3. G e n e r a t e A l t e r n a t i v e (GA): I n c l u d e s o f f e r i n g o r i g i n a l s u g g e s t i o n s o r o p i n i o n s b a s e d on a l t e r n a t i v e s p r o v i d e d i n t h e t e x t a t hand. Functions: proposing alternatives, recommending Structure: modals, c o n d i t i o n a l  a) o f f e r i n g  original  expressing  opinions  suggestions  -  " I t h i n k i t s h o u l d be a new  paragraph."  -  "You s h o u l d  -  "So y o u c a n u s e "and" t o c o n n e c t  -  "We  -  "Maybe l a t e r  a d d some i n f o r m a t i o n . " the sentences."  c a n buy o i l f r o m o t h e r p l a c e s . " s h e c a n h a v e a baby and q u i t h e r j o b .  128  b)  4.  o f f e r i n g o p i n i o n s b a s e d on a l t e r n a t i v e s p r o v i d e d i n t h e t e x t a t hand -  " I t h i n k she can c o n t i n u e  her career."  -  "Another reason expensive'."  -  " I f I were h e r I w o u l d g e t m a r r i e d  f o r sea route  i s 'pipelinei s  with  Winston."  I d e n t i f y Purpose o r Reason ( I P ) : R e f e r s t o a r e a s o n t h a t d o e s n o t go b e y o n d t h e p r a c t i c a l t a s k a n d d o e s n o t r e f e r to r u l e s or standards. Includes d e s c r i b i n g or defending a c t i o n taken, e l a b o r a t i n g a reason f o r a question o r statement, o r c a t e g o r i z i n g advantages/disadvantages.  Functions: g i v i n g reasons Structure: subordination  a)  b)  a w r i t e r describes/defends -  " I know h i m , t h a t ' s why I s a i d  -  "I t e l l  5.  ' T h a t was J a c k  again'"  what s h e i s t h i n k i n g a b o u t . "  a g r o u p member e l a b o r a t e s a r e a s o n q u e s t i o n o r making a statement -  c)  what s/he h a s w r i t t e n  f o r asking a  " I d i d t h e q u e s t i o n because you t e l l i n g u n c l e d o e s n ' t have l a n d . "  about  your  the advantages/disadvantages o f a l t e r n a t i v e sa r e categorized -  "He's OK b e c a u s e he i s r i c h  -  "Earthquake w i l l a f f e c t reason f o r sea route."  and a l w a y s k i n d t o h e r . "  the pipeline:  this  isa  J u s t i f y ( J ) : S u p p l i e s a reason f o r an e v a l u a t i o n o r a s u g g e s t i o n , b u t must r e f e r t o some b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e b a s e d on a c c e p t e d s t a n d a r d s o r c r i t e r i a , o r on e x p e r i e n t i a l knowledge e n a b l i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s t o be made.  Functions: Structure:  j u s t i f y i n g opinions, concluding, p r e d i c t i n g , generalizing subordination, conditional  129  a)  academically accepted standards o r c r i t e r i a are referred to: -  " I f you put that too short."  -  "The p r o b l e m i s y o u n e e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e p o v e r t y . In o u r mind, we know o u r p o v e r t y , b u t i n Canada i s d i f f e r e n t . . . we a r e p o o r , b u t we h a v e h o u s e , we h a v e . . . . " ( c r i t e r i a t h a t t h e average r e a d e r needs c l e a r e r information i s implied)  b)  i n your conclusion  y o u r body w i l l  be  r u l e s a r e r e f e r r e d t o (found almost e x c l u s i v e l y i n the e d i t i n g t a s k ) : -  " S h o u l d be a p e r i o d sentence."  -  "You need  -  " I say 'harder  c)  'on  here.  Otherwise i s run-on  - the preposition."  7  7  b e c a u s e I compare."  e x p e r i e n t i a l knowledge which e n a b l e s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s o r p r e d i c t i o n s t o b e made i s r e f e r r e d t o : -  "He i s t o o o l d . . . y o u know when t h e y g o t some c h i l d r e n and t h e c h i l d r e n s a y 'My d a d i s t o o o l d ' . "  -  "He h a d many g i r l f r i e n d s . . . h e w i l l c o n t i n u e . . . b e c a u s e t h e man who h a d many g i r l f r i e n d s b e f o r e . . . "  -  "So t h a t mean t h e p i p e l i n e w i l l f o l l o w t h e r i v e r a n d make p o l l u t i o n . . . t h e o i l c o u l d k i l l t h e f i s h . . . "  130  EXAMPLES OF CODING Revision R:  So, now we h a v e t o d i s c u s s t h e . . . I s t h e t i t l e  SI:  Title's  R:  S h o u l d b e "A Drunk Man" o r "The Drunk Man"?  S3:  But f i n a l l y  S2:  Because here...you t a l k . . . t h e p r o c e s s o f b e i n g d r u n k and t h e p r o c e s s why he g o t d i v o r c e , y o u g o t l o t s o f . . . I mean...you t e l l l o t s o f . . . I t h i n k y o u better find a better t i t l e .  R:  But I r e a l l y l i k e t h a t t i t l e t o f i x t o t h a t s t o r y , b e c a u s e what I l i k e t o d e s c r i b e i s t h e man...how he c h a n g e d h i s l i f e s t y l e .  OK.  OK?  Drunk Man.  he n o t d r u n k .  S2: OK t h a t ' s why y o u . . . I mean y o u ' r e t a l k i n g a b o u t ...when y o u s a y "The Drunk Man" y o u ' r e t a l k i n g about drunk, r i g h t ? S3:  But f i n a l l y  he n o t d r u n k .  R:  B u t when I s t a r t e d t h e s t o r y he was  S2:  . . . a b o u t what t i m e . . . a b o u t 3 y e a r s ? Before that he w a s n ' t d r u n k , and a f t e r t h a t he q u i t .  R:  T h a t ' s why I wanna d e s c r i b e t h a t p a r t . Only t h a t part. When he was d r u n k , r i g h t ? And how he q u i t f r o m t h e d r u n k man t o t h e n o r m a l p e o p l e .  S2:  I d o n ' t k n o w . . . f o r me "The Drunk Man" i s n o t quite s u i t a b l e with your composition.  R:  OK. G i v e me  S2:  B e c a u s e t h e r e i s a l e s s o n why, I mean t h e r e i s a l e s s o n by b e i n g d r u n k . . . I m e a n . . . h i s l i f e i s n o t good...  SI:  How a b o u t  drunk.  ideas.  "A New  Life"?  131  Editing R: Q  SI: Nice t i t l e .  R:  OK. I n t r o d u c t i o n : " P e o p l e go t o s c h o o l b e c a u s e t h e y n e e d t o i m p r o v e t h e i r knowledge o r s k i l l s . "  SI:  Go a h e a d .  R:  "When t h e y c a n e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i r c a r e e r . . . " , oh, " t h e i r c a r e e r " i s wrong..."what t h e y have i n t e r e s t e d i n " . . . n o w a i t , wait a minute...wrong word — WW.  S2: Oh. "and t h a t  they  are interested i n " .  "interested in"?  S3: " t h e y have  interested"  S2: N o . . . j u s t ,  no "have",  "they a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n "  R:  No "have", t a k e i t o u t .  S2:  "They a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n " .  R:  OK.  S3: Yeah, R: |£J^  Great.  Good.  R:  (^/\  "Anxious About Her F u t u r e " .  S2:  ft  Q.f\  OK, t h e t i t l e :  good.  "So i s J a n e t , my  friend.  Today s h e . . . "  S2: How come "So i s J a n e t " ? SI:  So i s J a n e t .  Go a h e a d .  R:  I mean, y o u go t o s c h o o l , y o u want t o l e a r n E n g l i s h , so am I . I mean l i k e t h a t .  Problem-Solving  Activity  ( S o p h i e ' s Dilemma) f r o m R e a c t T h i s one f i r s t .  Give  Interact  - ESL Text  SI:  OK.  S2:  Why S o p h i e  S3:  Should  SI:  A r e you t h i n k i n g you a r e good p e r s o n  S3:  No, he i s n o t good p e r s o n  SI: S3:  How come? G i v e me a r e a s o n . He h a s two q u a l i t i e s . He e x p r e s s h i s l o v e o p e n l y and he i s i n e x c e l l e n t p h y s i c a l h e a l t h . B u t he h a s many m i s t a k e s and I t h i n k s h e ' s n o t g o i n g t o get m a r r i e d him.  SI:  What k i n d  of mistakes?  S3:  What k i n d  of mistakes?  S2:  No, i t s a y i n t h e p a s t . . .  SI:  That's not a mistake.  S3:  B u t he h a d a l o t . . . b u t he w i l l  SI:  How do y o u know?  S2:  I t say i n the past.  S3:  B e c a u s e t h e man who h a d a l o t before...  S2:  No n o . . . i s  S3:  He's a m b i t i o u s a n d . . . e g o i s t i c  S4:  Yeah, t h i s  S3:  I s n o t good p o i n t . . . s h e w i l l  SI:  So t h i s  S2:  My o p i n i o n i s d i f f e r e n t . He t a k e h e r . . . t o p l a c e when he c a n g e t f r e e t i c k e t s . I t means he c h e a p . Why i f he l o v e h e r why d o n ' t he buy t h e t i c k e t and i n v i t i n g h e r i n s t e a d o f g e t f r e e t i c k e t ?  s h o u l d marry  reasons.  Derek?  marry? f o r Sophie?  f o r Sophie.  He h a s many  girlfriends.  continue.  of girlfriends  just...  i s n o t good  point. b e mad.  guy i s n o t good p e r s o n  because...  "Academic" Problem S o l v i n g A c t i v i t y (Should "Zanaland" b u i l t route t o transport o i l ? )  a p i p e l i n e o r use a sea - from Involvement  SI:  So...reasons f o r the p i p e l i n e . . . y e a h . . . t h e l o c a t i o n had s e v e r a l earthquakes...  S2:  That's  t h e reason  S I : No, n o . . . i t s  o f sea route...  f o rthe pipeline.  S2:  No...the sea r o u t e .  S3:  Earthquake w i l l  SI:  Yeah.  S2:  So t h a t  S3:  Use t h e s e a r o u t e ,  S4:  Pipeline  S2:  The p i p e l i n e . . . i t  affect  i s the reason  f o rbuild  the sea route.  yeah.  is...what's  S I : You e v e r  the pipeline.  pipeline?  make l i k e  a line,  long  line.  see water under t h e ground?  S3:  Transport  the...oil.  S4:  Oh I s e e .  S3:  Which p o i n t a r e y o u t a l k i n g  about t h i s  one?  S I : The a r e a . . . O K ? S3:  Oh OK.  S2:  So t h e o t h e r o n e . . . o c e a n c u r r e n t s a n d w i n d many p a r t s o f t h e c o a s t l i n e a r e on s h o r e . That's the reason f o r the p i p e l i n e .  S I : No no.  How a b o u t t h e s e a . . . t h e  sea route?  along  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 9 22
United States 8 0
Indonesia 3 0
Japan 2 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 6 0
Beijing 6 0
Jagakarsa 3 0
Shenzhen 3 22
Tokyo 2 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Redmond 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

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.831.1-0078369/manifest

Comment

Related Items