Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Eliciting the language of decision making through collaborative revision of compositions 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 ]
UBC_1990_A8 P64.pdf
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
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 this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of LjQ^qVdZqe, SAoc&^iot~\ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) i i ABSTRACT W r i t t e n and o r a l second language pedagogy have undergone a major s h i f t from the t r a d i t i o n a l focus on form and end-product t o a focus on the pro c e s s o f c r e a t i n g meaning. 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 a r e l i a n c e on p r o c e s s alone i s i n s u f f i c i e n t , and t h a t s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c and knowledge-related demands must be made w i t h i n a p r o c e s s i f second language l e a r n e r s are t o develop p r o f i c i e n c y i n o r a l and w r i t t e n e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e . I n t e r a c t i v e decision-making a c t i v i t i e s i n the classroom may pr e s e n t such demands, but the p r e - c o n s t r u c t e d , somewhat a r t i f i c i a l t a s k s t y p i c a l l y i n c l u d e d i n a d u l t ESL c l a s s e s are g e n e r a l l y d i r e c t e d toward the l i m i t e d g o a l o f s t i m u l a t i n g more t a l k , without v e r i f y i n g t h e i r v a l u e f o r g e n e r a t i n g the language t h a t i s c o g n i t i v e l y l i n k e d t o decision-making. While c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n o f compositions has been used t o a i d decision-making d u r i n g w r i t i n g , i t s p o t e n t i a l as a language l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y has not p r e v i o u s l y been e x p l o r e d . The c u r r e n t study examines c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n o f compositions as a t o o l f o r e l i c i t i n g o r a l d ecision-making language i n the ESL classroom. E i g h t a d u l t ESL students p a r t i c i p a t e d i n two c o l l a b o r a t i v e c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s and two i n t e r a c t i v e " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " a c t i v i t i e s . U s ing repeated measures ANOVA, the composition r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s were found t o be a t l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e as the i i i c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s f o r e l i c i t i n g d e c i s i o n - making language as measured by f i v e c a t e g o r i e s o f d e c i s i o n - making moves. Q u a l i t a t i v e examination o f the d i s c o u r s e i n d i c a t e d t h a t the composition a c t i v i t i e s a l s o o f f e r a co n t e x t f o r c o n s c i o u s rein forcement o f p r i n c i p l e s o f grammar and r h e t o r i c . The p r e s e n t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s a c t i v i t y may o f f e r a n a t u r a l a l t e r n a t i v e t o p r e - c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n - making t a s k s , and i n doing so p r o v i d e s a co n t e x t f o r the i n t e g r a t i o n o f o r a l and w r i t t e n language l e a r n i n g . In a d d i t i o n , by e v a l u a t i n g the d i s c o u r s e of a c t i v i t i e s i n language terms, t h i s r e s e a r c h may h e l p p r o v i d e a b r i d g e between pro c e s s e s and products not o n l y f o r w r i t i n g but f o r communicative language t e a c h i n g . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT I I LIST OF TABLES V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VI INTRODUCTION and IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 R a t i o n a l e f o r pr e s e n t study 7 Research problem 9 Research q u e s t i o n s 10 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12 I n t r o d u c t i o n 12 The Value of " T a l k " i n the ESL Classroom 13 I n t e r a c t i o n and Group Work 13 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 15 L i n k i n g content, meaning and form 16 The language of decision-making 18 Cons t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s 23 Decision-making and composing 28 L i n k i n g c h o i c e s t o knowledge 29 Confe r e n c i n g and c o l l a b o r a t i o n 39 C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n : a decision-making a c t i v i t y . 42 Hypotheses 46 Background and r a t i o n a l e 46 O p e r a t i o n a l statement of hypotheses 50 METHODOLOGY 51 I n t r o d u c t i o n 51 S e t t i n g 52 P a r t i c i p a n t s 53 V a r i a b l e s 56 Independent v a r i a b l e 56 Dependent v a r i a b l e s 56 Experimental m a t e r i a l s 57 Procedure 59 Research Design 59 Experimental t a s k 60 Coding 64 RESULTS 67 I n t r o d u c t i o n 67 D e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s 69 Summary 83 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 86 D i s c u s s i o n 86 Q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s 86 Q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s 92 I m p l i c a t i o n s 109 L i m i t a t i o n s of the presen t study 112 Suggestions f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h 113 Summary 114 REFERENCES 116 APPENDIX A 120 APPENDIX B 121 APPENDIX C 125 LIST OF TABLES T a b l e 1 Background of Subjec t s 55 Tabl e 2 Frequency of I n d i v i d u a l Decision-Making 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 Each Task 70 Tabl e 3 T o t a l Decision-Making Moves by Task, f o r Each Subject 71 T a b l e 4 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e T a b l e : E f f e c t o f Task on T o t a l Decision-Making Moves 72 Ta b l e 5 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e T a b l e : E f f e c t o f Task on E l i c i t i n g the Move "Rate" 73 Ta b l e 6 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e T a b l e : E f f e c t o f Task on E l i c i t i n g the Move "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " 75 Ta b l e 7 Chisquare T a b l e : Frequencies of Moves by Task 78 Tabl e 8 Chisquare Table: T o t a l Moves by I n d i v i d u a l s f o r Each Task 81 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e t o express my g r a t i t u d e t o my t h e s i s committee, Dr. Bernard Mohan, Dr. Margaret E a r l y and Dr. Dan P r a t t , f o r t h e i r c r i t i c a l r e a d i n g o f the manuscript and c o n s t r u c t i v e s u g g e s t i o n s . Thank you t o Dr. Mohan, my a d v i s o r , f o r con t i n u e d guidance, support and feedback; t o Dr. E a r l y f o r her i n s p i r a t i o n a l r o l e i n the development 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 d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e . A d d i t i o n a l thanks are extended t o Dr. Walter 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 would a l s o l i k e t o acknowledge Vancouver Community C o l l e g e , King Edward Campus, f o r a l l o w i n g access t o a d u l t ESL c l a s s e s i n which t o c o l l e c t data f o r the study, and the students who p a r t i c i p a t e d as s u b j e c t s i n the study. S p e c i a l thanks t o Dennie R o t h s c h i l d , i n whose classroom the data was gathered, f o r her e n t h u s i a s t i c i n t e r e s t i n the p r o j e c t and a l s o f o r her c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n the codi n g o f the data. F i n a l l y , I wish t o thank Steve Richmond, my husband, f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e w i t h word p r o c e s s i n g and e d i t i n g , but most o f a l l f o r h i s unwavering support, p a t i e n c e , 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 developments i n the f i e l d o f language e d u c a t i o n have i d e n t i f i e d the advantages of i n c o r p o r a t i n g i n t e r a c t i v e " p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g " i n t o both f i r s t and second language classroom a c t i v i t i e s . With the s h i f t o f emphasis from " c o r r e c t n e s s " t o the communication of meaning, r e s e a r c h has begun t o examine how l e a r n e r s can be helped t o communicate meaning more e f f e c t i v e l y . Research on f i r s t language (LI) composition has p r o v i d e d an i n s i g h t i n t o the composing p r o c e s s and has i n d i c a t e d t h a t c o n d i t i o n s which are most b e n e f i c i a l t o the development of good composition s k i l l s i n v o l v e problem s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s and peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n ( C l i f f o r d , 1981; H i l l o c k s , 1 9 8 6 ) . These have been a p p l i e d t o some ext e n t i n t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g t o l e a r n e r s o f E n g l i s h as a second language (ESL) (L i n g , 1988; L i n g & R o t h s c h i l d , 1989). A growing s c h o o l o f thought i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n t h e o r y suggests t h a t problem s o l v i n g approaches which i n c r e a s e l e a r n e r s ' v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n the classroom w i l l n e c e s s i t a t e the l e a r n i n g and use of s p e c i f i c language s t r u c t u r e s a s s o c i a t e d with r e a s o n i n g and d e c i s i o n making (Mohan, 1985) . The u n d e r l y i n g i d e a here i s t h a t we do not l e a r n a language j u s t t o know the language, but t o use i t as a medium of communication and l e a r n i n g i n the r e a l world. The language t h a t we need t o use i s dependent upon the 2 immediate s i t u a t i o n . Furthermore, the a b i l i t y t o know what language t o use i n a s i t u a t i o n depends on a t h e o r e t i c a l u n d erstanding o f the l i n k between language and c o n t e x t . In a decision-making s i t u a t i o n a l e a r n e r not o n l y becomes f a m i l i a r w i t h the voc a b u l a r y and communicative s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y f o r the immediate s i t u a t i o n but i s r e q u i r e d t o understand the concepts o f e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e . In the course o f l e a r n i n g the s t r u c t u r e o f d e c i s i o n s , students become aware of the language i n v o l v e d i n the p r o c e s s . A b i l i t y t o engage i n t h i s process, a l o n g w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e language use, w i l l h o p e f u l l y be t r a n s f e r r e d as knowledge t o any decision-making s i t u a t i o n . Mohan (198 6) proposes a framework f o r the s t r u c t u r e o f knowledge based on the concept o f a c t i v i t y . Inherent i n t h i s i s the i d e a t h a t language i s b e s t l e a r n e d through c o n t e n t ; t h a t i n a second language classroom, form must be l i n k e d t o content. An a c t i v i t y p r o v i d e s the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r l e a r n i n g about some p r a c t i c a l aspect o f a content-based t o p i c , and p r o v i d e s a c o n t e x t u a l l i n k f o r the language t h a t needs t o be used i n s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s o r s i t u a t i o n s . The knowledge framework separates knowledge s t r u c t u r e s i n t o those t h a t are l i n k e d t o p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s ( d e s c r i p t i o n , sequence and choice) and those t h a t are l i n k e d t o t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge (concepts and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , p r i n c i p l e s , and e v a l u a t i o n ) . The r e s e a r c h t o be d e s c r i b e d here i s concerned w i t h the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s o f e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e . When faced w i t h a s p e c i f i c c h o i c e , 3 an i n d i v i d u a l c o n s i d e r s v a r i o u s p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r the immediate s i t u a t i o n , but e v a l u a t e s the p o s s i b i l i t i e s based on background knowledge of v a l u e s , standards and g o a l s . Exposure t o d e c i s i o n making s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r e s the i n d i v i d u a l t o use the t h i n k i n g p rocesses r e l a t e d t o the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s of e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e , and t o b e g i n t o understand t h a t t h e r e are semantic r e l a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t e d by these s t r u c t u r e s . An i n t e r a c t i v e a c t i v i t y p r o v i d e s the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r l e a r n i n g how these semantic r e l a t i o n s are expressed i n the t a r g e t language. The t o p i c s used f o r d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s are most e a s i l y found i n the context of s c h o o l - r e l a t e d content f o r c h i l d r e n ' s c l a s s e s and i n the content of everyday l i f e a c t i v i t i e s f o r a d u l t s . But whereas a c t i v i t i e s t h a t young ESL l e a r n e r s p a r t i c i p a t e i n a t s c h o o l r e f l e c t r e q u i r e d academic content, a c t i v i t i e s used f o r a d u l t ESL s tudents must appeal t o a wide v a r i e t y of i n t e r e s t s and backgrounds. Numerous a d u l t ESL textbooks which focus on the use of i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s , s t a t e such g o a l s as: encouraging students t o express t h e i r "own i d e a s and o p i n i o n s " ; p r o v i d i n g the " o p p o r t u n i t y t o hear and e v a l u a t e the o p i n i o n s and i d e a s of o t h e r s t u d e n t s " . . . w h i l e e n a b l i n g them t o . . . " r e i n f o r c e the v o c a b u l a r y and new language p a t t e r n s t h a t a r i s e i n the o r a l exchanges" (Byrd & Clemente- Cabetas, 1980); and "to s t i m u l a t e d i s c u s s i o n o f t o p i c s which are of i n t e r e s t t o a d u l t s and t o enable the student t o p r a c t i s e , i n as n a t u r a l a way as p o s s i b l e , the knowledge 4 s/he has a c q u i r e d " (Bowers & Godfrey, 1985). D e s p i t e the broad range o f i n t e r a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n s o f f e r e d i n these and other t e x t s , t h e r e are a number of problems wi t h the content. F i r s t of a l l , though the t o p i c s are supposedly o f g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t , t h e r e i s no guarantee t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f students i n a c l a s s w i l l f i n d a t o p i c u s e f u l t o h i s or her p r e s e n t or f u t u r e s i t u a t i o n . F o r language t o be l e a r n e d , i t must be meaningful and u s e f u l t o the l e a r n e r . As s t a t e d by Tucker and d 1 A n g l e j a n , "The student can most e f f e c t i v e l y a c q u i r e a second language when the t a s k of language l e a r n i n g becomes i n c i d e n t a l t o the t a s k of communicating wi t h someone... about some t o p i c . . . which i s i n h e r e n t l y i n t e r e s t i n g t o the student (Tucker and d'Anglejan, 1975, 162) . Once a d u l t students get t o the i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l and beyond ( a f t e r the b a s i c l i f e s k i l l s have been used as c o n t e n t ) , t h e r e seems t o be l e s s and l e s s " r e l e v a n t c ontent" i n the ESL classroom. Secondly, a d u l t ESL a c t i v i t i e s 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 - making almost i n v a r i a b l y supply the students w i t h both the d e c i s i o n t o be made and the v a r i o u s o p t i o n s t o choose from. Recent r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t i n s t e a d of having problems a l r e a d y l a i d out, l e a r n e r s need the o p p o r t u n i t y t o i d e n t i f y problems, and then f i g u r e out what needs t o be 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) . S i m i l a r l y , programs t o improve d e c i s i o n making s k i l l s i n the schools have d e s c r i b e d the f i r s t stages i n the d e c i s i o n making process as " d e f i n e the d e c i s i o n t o be 5 made" f o l l o w e d by " i d e n t i f y a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s " (Ochoa and Shuster, 1980) or " i d e n t i f y the i s s u e " f o l l o w e d by " i d e n t i f y p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s o r a l t e r n a t i v e s " ( S o c i a l S t u d i e s Resource Manual, 1986). F a i l u r e t o r e c o g n i z e the importance o f these stages i n the language l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y d e n i e s l e a r n e r s o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o access p r e v i o u s l y l e a r n e d knowledge and apply i t t o new s i t u a t i o n s . And from a language p o i n t o f view, they do not get the o p p o r t u n i t y t o l e a r n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between elements of language and these stages o f d e c i s i o n making. Ross (1981) s t a t e s t h a t the knowledge component of d e c i s i o n making i n v o l v e s "the a c q u i s i t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e bodies of i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o ground decision-making i n r e a l l i f e e x p e r i e n c e " (p.279). From both a content and language p o i n t o f view, o u t s i d e o f v e r y s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s , such as an i n d i v i d u a l workplace o r an E n g l i s h f o r S p e c i f i c Purposes classroom, t h i s type o f o p p o r t u n i t y i s almost n o n e x i s t e n t f o r the a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r . The l i m i t e d o p p o r t u n i t y f o r e x p l o r a t i o n o f f e r e d by most c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e commercial m a t e r i a l s (from which we can get a good i d e a o f what i s t y p i c a l l y c o n s i d e r e d important i n second language i n s t r u c t i o n ) r e f l e c t s a v e r y s e r i o u s shortcoming i n terms of language a c q u i s i t i o n . I f the v a l u e of a d e c i s i o n making s i t u a t i o n i s t h a t i t p r o v i d e s a con t e x t f o r the maximum use of both p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l language, then a c t i v i t i e s need t o be designed w i t h t h i s form-content l i n k i n mind. So, i n summary, not o n l y should 6 an a c t i v i t y be r e l e v a n t and u s e f u l f o r l a t e r t r a n s f e r o f content knowledge, but i t must a l s o be designed t o be maximally e f f e c t i v e f o r e l i c i t i n g both p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e . One p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n , which would o f f e r a d u l t ESL students the o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n t e r a c t i v e l y make d e c i s i o n s based on content r e l e v a n t f o r everyone, i s t o view the c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n o f student's compositions as an i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making tas k . W r i t i n g i s o f t e n the most d i f f i c u l t s k i l l f o r second language l e a r n e r s , and even though many may f e e l t h a t they do not "enjoy" w r i t i n g , they r e a l i z e t h a t i t i s probably important f o r t h e i r f u t u r e . The r e v i s i o n o f w r i t t e n compositions has come t o be accepted as a p r o c e s s o f p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g o r decision-making. Furthermore, t h e r e i s evidence t h a t r e v i s i o n i n groups of peers can h e l p students l e a r n t o improve t h e i r own w r i t i n g . But i n s p i t e o f the spreading use of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n and o t h e r " i n t e r a c t i v e w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s " , t h e r e remains a widespread h e s i t a n c y among a d u l t ESL i n s t r u c t o r s t o i n c o r p o r a t e w r i t i n g as a major component of t h e i r c u r r i c u l u m because i t i s s t i l l seen as an i s o l a t e d a c t i v i t y which may take v a l u a b l e time away from i n t e r a c t i v e , communicative l i s t e n i n g and speaking. I f i n t e r a c t i v e w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s , i n p a r t i c u l a r the c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n task, c o u l d be viewed as having a d d i t i o n a l v a l u e as e f f e c t i v e o r a l i n t e r a c t i o n t a s k s , s tudents would have the dual advantage of working on 7 w r i t i n g and speaking (and i n f a c t , r e a d i n g and l i s t e n i n g as w e l l ) , based on the same r e l e v a n t content. R a t i o n a l e f o r p r e s e n t study There has been l i t t l e e x p l o r a t i o n o f the k i n d o f t a l k t h a t o c c u r s i n the context of peers d i s c u s s i n g each o t h e r s ' w r i t i n g i n the L 2 classroom, o r of whether t h i s c o n t e x t might be v a l u a b l e f o r improving L 2 l e a r n e r s ' a b i l i t y t o engage i n o r a l e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e . The g o a l o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , t h e r e f o r e , was t o i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n as an a c t i v i t y f o r encouraging the use of problem s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s and the language of e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e i n the ESL classroom. In o t h e r words, i s c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n a v a l u a b l e t a s k f o r e l i c i t i n g the language of d e c i s i o n making? The approach chosen f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o 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 s p e c i f i c a l l y d esigned f o r i n t e r a c t i v e decision-making. C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n was viewed as two t a s k s . Much c u r r e n t t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e i n t e a c h i n g ESL and f i r s t language composition s t r e s s e s the importance o f students f i r s t r e v i s i n g t h e i r compositions f o r meaning, content and o r g a n i z a t i o n , and l a t e r e d i t i n g the compositions f o r grammar and mechanics. T h e r e f o r e the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v e d two t a s k s , c a l l e d r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g . Because p r e - f a b r i c a t e d p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s are wi d e l y used i n a d u l t ESL c l a s s e s , i t can be assumed t h a t many ESL i n s t r u c t o r s c o n s i d e r these t a s k s t o be v a l u a b l e i n 8 some way. The t a s k s are u s u a l l y based on e n t e r t a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g easy-to-teach content so t h a t students w i l l be i n s t a n t l y engaged and can get r i g h t down t o the i n t e r a c t i o n a c t i v i t y . The a c t i v i t y i s s e t up so t h a t s t u d e n t s need t o use language f u n c t i o n s such as e v a l u a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s , a greeing, d i s a g r e e i n g , and g i v i n g s u g g e s t i o n s , w h i l e p r o g r e s s i n g through the p r e - c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n . T h i s type of a c t i v i t y , which w i l l be c a l l e d a " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " t a s k or a c t i v i t y throughout t h i s t h e s i s , p r o v i d e d a ready-made b a s i s of comparison t o the c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s . In a d d i t i o n , a non-ESL a c t i v i t y was i n c l u d e d i n the comparison. Not a l l i n s t r u c t o r s are content t o use commercial a c t i v i t i e s developed e s p e c i a l l y f o r a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s ; many i n s t r u c t o r s go t o g r e a t p a i n s t o develop problem s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s based on content more r e l e v a n t f o r the p a r t i c u l a r group of students they are t e a c h i n g a t the time. These a c t i v i t i e s , because they are p a r t of an o v e r a l l content-based g o a l , c o u l d be compared t o problem- s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s found i n S o c i a l S t u d i e s t e x t s designed f o r secondary s c h o o l students. I t was of a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r e s t t o examine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of such an "academic" t a s k t o e l i c i t the language of decision-making. P a r t of the r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s was t o see i f the "academic" t a s k would be too d i f f i c u l t and time consuming. I f so, the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s c o u l d be viewed as a " b r i d g e " between t a s k s based on p e r s o n a l knowledge and more demanding 9 t a s k s based on academic knowledge. In summary, the two broad c a t e g o r i e s of i n t e r a c t i v e t a s k s under 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 t a s k s and commercially designed " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " t a s k s . The c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s i n c l u d e d c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n and c o l l a b o r a t i v e e d i t i n g . The 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 n c l u d e d a p o p u l a r a c t i v i t y from an a d u l t ESL textbook and a t a s k from an LI S o c i a l S t u d i e s t e x t . Research problem The purpose of t h i s study was t o e x p l o r e the q u e s t i o n of whether 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 might be e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e problem s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s , which would e l i c i t the language of decision-making, as a c t i v i t i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y designed f o r t h i s purpose. T h i s was based on the premise t h a t i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making t a s k s are not j u s t a c t i v i t i e s t o i n c r e a s e g e n e r a l t a l k i n the second language classroom, but they serve the purpose of e l i c i t i n g language t h a t i s c o g n i t i v e l y l i n k e d t o the stages of decision-making. In a d d i t i o n , the study examined the use of a p o s s i b l e c o d i n g system which would a l l o w the comparison o f the f o u r a c t i v i t i e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 10 Research q u e s t i o n s There i s evidence t h a t w r i t i n g i s i n t i m a t e l y l i n k e d w i t h d e c i s i o n making, and t h a t group problem s o l v i n g can h e l p improve w r i t i n g . Furthermore, r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t problem s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s are necessary i n the second language classroom i n o r der t o s t i m u l a t e the e x p o s i t o r y language of decision-making, which i s l i n k e d t o the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s of e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e . T h i s language r e f l e c t s behaviours commonly accepted as p a r t of the decision-making process ( i d e n t i f y the problem; suggest a l t e r n a t i v e s ; e v a l u a t e a l t e r n a t i v e s based on c r i t e r i a ) . Based on these i n d i c a t i o n s , the r e s e a r c h e x p l o r e d one c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n : 1. Does the 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 the language of d e c i s i o n making as e f f e c t i v e l y as a t a s k designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r decision-making w i t h i n an ESL c l a s s ? 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 the language which, i n theory, should be produced d u r i n g a decision-making t a s k ( r e q u e s t s / o f f e r s , agreement/disagreement; a d v i c e (modals); p r e f e r e n c e s ; e v a l u a t i o n a d j e c t i v e s ; verbs of judgement; j u s t i f i c a t i o n of o p i n i o n s ; and s p e c i a l i z e d v o cabulary r e l a t e d t o the content) e x h i b i t e d w i t h the same frequency d u r i n g the 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 as d u r i n g the two " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " t a s k s ? 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 students between the f o u r t a s k s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n ? The p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n s can be d e a l t w i t h 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 q u a l i t a t i v e l y , by examining the a c t u a l 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 about d u r i n g each of the f o u r t a s k s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n ? What are the 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. In p a r t i c u l a r , i s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e i n the k i n d o f background knowledge 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 s u g g e s t i o n s and/or d e c i s i o n s ? 12 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE I n t r o d u c t i o n A review of r e s e a r c h r e l e v a n t t o the c u r r e n t study must be drawn from s e v e r a l areas. Because the r e s e a r c h was proposed based on the premise t h a t i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s are a v a l u a b l e a c t i v i t y f o r second language l e a r n i n g , background on the e v o l u t i o n o f t h i s premise w i l l be reviewed. T h i s w i l l i n c l u d e a d i s c u s s i o n of the i d e a t h a t these a c t i v i t i e s must be based on r e l e v a n t content. Secondly, because the c u r r e n t study addresses the q u e s t i o n of whether c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n of compositions can serve as a worthwhile i n t e r a c t i v e o r a l d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t y , r e s e a r c h s u p p o r t i n g the i d e a o f w r i t t e n composition, s p e c i f i c a l l y r e v i s i o n , as a d e c i s i o n making pr o c e s s , w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . T h i s w i l l i n c l u d e r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n i n g the c o g n i t i v e processes i n v o l v e d i n composing, and proposed s t r a t e g i e s f o r t e a c h i n g . F i n a l l y r e s e a r c h which suggests a p o s s i b l e c o n n e c t i o n between w r i t t e n composition and o r a l "decision-making" language w i l l be addressed. 13 The Value o f " T a l k " i n the ESL Classroom; An E v o l u t i o n i n T h i n k i n g I n t e r a c t i o n and Group Work In the l a s t decade, second language i n s t r u c t o r s and r e s e a r c h e r s have become i n c r e a s i n g l y aware t h a t i f second language l e a r n e r s are going t o l e a r n t o a c t u a l l y use a new language as a t o o l f o r communication, t h e r e must be more t o t a l k i n the classroom than r e p e t i t i o n o f phrases, d i a l o g u e s and s h o r t answers t o t e a c h e r s ' q u e s t i o n s . T h i s awareness l e d t o an i n t e r e s t i n u s i n g i n t e r a c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s i n the second language classroom i n order t o e l i c i t more " n a t u r a l " t a l k from students i n s t e a d o f a r t i f i c i a l c lassroom t a l k . T a l k t h a t i s c o n s i d e r e d " n a t u r a l " t a l k between n a t i v e speakers (NSs) of a language i s supposedly c h a r a c t e r i z e d by con t i n u e d " n e g o t i a t i o n f o r meaning" or " i n t e r a c t i o n a l adjustment" (Long, 1981). T h e r e f o r e , non-native speakers (NNSs) should be g i v e n more o p p o r t u n i t y t o work i n p a i r s o r sm a l l groups on t a s k s which a l l o w and encourage v a r i o u s types o f n e g o t i a t i o n f o r meaning, . o r "moves" such as c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t s , c o n f i r m a t i o n checks, comprehension checks, r e p e t i t i o n s and r e p h r a s i n g s (Long and P o r t e r , 1985). Long and P o r t e r c i t e s t u d i e s p r o v i d i n g e m p i r i c a l evidence f o r the v a l u e of group work. Some o f the f i n d i n g s have been t h a t both the range o f f u n c t i o n s and q u a n t i t y o f moves were g r e a t e r i n small group o r a l i n t e r a c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s than 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 d i d not produce more e r r o r s i n NNS-NNS p a i r s than i n NS-NNS 14 p a i r s o r i n the presence o f the te a c h e r ; and t h a t as much n e g o t i a t i o n o r r e p a i r and appeals f o r a s s i s t a n c e o c c u r r e d i n NNS-NNS p a i r s as by NNSs i n NS-NNS p a i r s . Long and P o r t e r a l s o c i t e Barton and Samuda (1980) who found t h a t l e a r n e r s are capable o f employing v a r i o u s e r r o r treatment s t r a t e g i e s , and suggested t h a t they c o u l d be g i v e n e x p l i c i t e r r o r m o n i t o r i n g t a s k s d u r i n g group work. Other i n t e r a c t i o n r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t t a s k s should i n v o l v e an i n f o r m a t i o n gap, t h a t i s , they should r e q u i r e every p a r t i c i p a n t t o c o n t r i b u t e i n f o r m a t i o n nobody e l s e has i n or d e r t o s o l v e a problem ( P i c a & Doughty, 1985, Doughty & P i c a , 1986) . T h i s i s meant t o promote "optimal c o n d i t i o n s f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s t o a d j u s t t h e i r i n p u t t o each o t h e r ' s l e v e l o f comprehension" ( P i c a & Doughty, 1985:117) and thereby i n c r e a s e s language a c q u i s i t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Long's 1981 in p u t and i n t e r a c t i o n model. T h i s r e s e a r c h focus, w h i l e v a l u a b l e i n t h a t i t opened up new h o r i z o n s i n t h i n k i n g about second language a c q u i s i t i o n (SLA), has some major shortcomings i n the areas of both content and language use. Proponents o f i n p u t - i n t e r a c t i o n have complained l e g i t i m a t e l y t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l classrooms do not i n c o r p o r a t e enough group t a s k s r e q u i r i n g meaningful n e g o t i a t i o n from a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s working toward mutual comprehension. They c l a i m t h a t ESL l e a r n e r s need t o engage i n t a s k s "which emphasize c o l l a b o r a t i o n and an equal share o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y among classroom p a r t i c i p a n t s " ( P i c a , 1987:17). They have o f f e r e d no adequate s o l u t i o n however, 15 and i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t the sample t a s k s used t o prove t h e i r p o i n t are l a r g e l y i r r e l e v a n t t o r e a l l i f e . How then, do they r e f l e c t an attempt t o o f f e r "equal s t a t u s " t o the l e a r n e r , an i d e a put f o r t h q u i t e adamantly by P i c a (1987)? Although Long (1985) d i s c u s s e s the importance o f c o n t e n t - based t a s k s r e l a t e d t o l e a r n e r needs o u t s i d e the classroom, most i n p u t - i n t e r a c t i o n proponents miss the need t o focus a t a s k on a t o p i c , and f o r t h a t t o p i c t o be r e l e v a n t t o the l e a r n e r s ' f u r t h e r expansion o f knowledge and s k i l l s . The importance o f content-based t a s k s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n . Furthermore, the id e a t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n and n e g o t i a t i o n f o r meaning i s enough t o i n c r e a s e second language a c q u i s i t i o n makes the assumption t h a t the pro c e s s i s s u f f i c i e n t t o l e a d t o the d e s i r e d end, without p r o v i d i n g any evidence f o r t h a t c l a i m . P r a c t i c a l and expository discourse: the d i s t i n c t i o n While i t i s important t o g i v e l e a r n e r s the o p p o r t u n i t y t o engage i n n a t u r a l d i s c o u r s e , i t i s a l s o necessary t o focus on what we are t r y i n g t o get a student t o l e a r n and p r a c t i c e ; i n oth e r words, what v a l u e does the generated t a l k have? Even i n the f i r s t language, a b a s i c d i f f i c u l t y f o r many s c h o o l c h i l d r e n , and f o r many a d u l t s who never overcome t h i s problem, i s i n the a b i l i t y t o speak i n a co h e s i v e manner, t o adequately d e s c r i b e a s t a t i c o r changing s i t u a t i o n , o r t o support an o p i n i o n . Brown e t a l . (1984) suggest t a s k s which focus on s p e c i f i c types o f e x p o s i t o r y 16 d i s c o u r s e and which can h e l p students understand where they need t o make changes. An example i s the use of peer t e a c h i n g t o e s t a b l i s h the needs of an audience. I f a speaker d e s c r i b e s a s i t u a t i o n t h a t the l i s t e n e r does not understand, the l i s t e n e r can supply cues t o h e l p the speaker c l a r i f y . T h i s p rocess a p p a r e n t l y a l s o enhances the l i s t e n e r ' s awareness of audience so t h a t h i s subsequent performance shows more audience s e n s i t i v i t y . The importance of d e v e l o p i n g s k i l l s i n e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e i s supported by r e s e a r c h t h a t i n d i c a t e s a d i f f e r e n c e between everyday c o n v e r s a t i o n (what Brown c a l l s "chat") and the k i n d of language used i n academic or p r o f e s s i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y Cummins (1984) d i s t i n g u i s h e s between " b a s i c i n t e r p e r s o n a l communicative s k i l l s " and " c o g n i t i v e academic language p r o f i c i e n c y " . While the former may be a c q u i r e d w i t h i n a few years of b e g i n n i n g t o l e a r n a second language, the l a t t e r t akes f a r l o n g e r t o achieve. N e g o t i a t i o n f o r meaning may i n d i c a t e t h a t language i s b e i n g produced, but t o what end? L i n k i n g content, meaning and form Swain (1985) argues t h a t i f n e g o t i a t i o n f o r meaning has a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on grammatical a c q u i s i t i o n , i t i s d e r i v e d from "comprehensible output: output t h a t extends the l i n g u i s t i c r e p e r t o i r e of the l e a r n e r as he or she attempts t o c r e a t e p r e c i s e l y and a p p r o p r i a t e l y the meaning desired"(p.252) . More r e c e n t work by Swain (1988) 17 d e s c r i b e s classroom a c t i v i t i e s i n the K-12 system which i n c o r p o r a t e content i n such a way t h a t focuses on "form- meaning r e l a t i o n s h i p s " and which "demand lo n g e r , more complex, and coherent language from the l e a r n e r " (p. 81) . A c c o r d i n g t o Swain, t a s k s need t o be " c o n t r i v e d " t o ensure the a u t h e n t i c use of language forms, p a r t i c u l a r l y those t h a t would not normally be used i n e i t h e r i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n o r the t r a d i t i o n a l language classroom. So although b a s i c communication s k i l l s may p r o v i d e an important f o u n d a t i o n f o r f u r t h e r l e a r n i n g , i f e x p o s i t o r y language s k i l l s a re t o develop, the t a s k must focus on a g o a l which encourages the use of language s p e c i f i c t o the problem. Mohan (1986) and Staab (1986) d e s c r i b e how t a s k s can be designed t o e l i c i t s p e c i f i c types o f t a l k r e f l e c t i n g the " f u n c t i o n " (Staab) o r the "knowledge s t r u c t u r e " (Mohan) i n v o l v e d i n the performance of the t a s k . Mohan's c l a i m i s t h a t s i n c e language i s the medium through which we t e a c h and conduct our l i v e s , language must be l e a r n e d through content. Language i s necessary f o r the development o f content knowledge, and f o r l i n g u i s t i c p r o f i c i e n c y t o develop, t h e r e must be a focus on both the p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l a s p e c t s o f any content s i t u a t i o n . ESL students have d i f f i c u l t y l i n k i n g language and content beyond the p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n . Mohan o f f e r s a model which can h e l p p r o v i d e these students w i t h a c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e t o i n t e g r a t e language and content - a knowledge framework which l i n k s a s p e c t s o f any t o p i c t o the s p e c i f i c d i s c o u r s e i n v o l v e d . 18 The framework or g a n i z e s d i s c o u r s e i n t o two major c a t e g o r i e s : p r a c t i c a l d i s c o u r s e ( r e l a t e d t o a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n ) , which i n c l u d e s the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s o f d e s c r i p t i o n , sequencing, and ch o i c e ; and t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e ( r e l a t e d t o background knowledge and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s ) , which i n c l u d e s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , p r i n c i p l e s and e v a l u a t i o n . Any t o p i c can be broken down i n t o a c t i v i t i e s which r e f l e c t the s i x knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , and each r e q u i r e s and e l i c i t s the use of s p e c i f i c language. S i m i l a r l y , Staab s t a t e s t h a t each a c t i v i t y has an "essence" or q u a l i t y which causes c e r t a i n language f u n c t i o n s t o be used. She found t h a t though some language f u n c t i o n s seem t o occur over a l l classroom a c t i v i t i e s , only c a r e f u l l y s t r u c t u r e d a c t i v i t i e s e f f e c t i v e l y e l i c i t the language f u n c t i o n o f forecasting/reasoning and evaluation/choice. Furthermore, t h i s language f u n c t i o n was most e f f e c t i v e l y e l i c i t e d from c h i l d r e n through q u e s t i o n i n g by the r e s e a r c h e r . A most important c o n t r i b u t i o n o f r e s e a r c h by Swain, Mohan and Staab i s t h a t i t examines and analyses a c t u a l d i s c o u r s e generated d u r i n g classroom t a s k s . The language of decision-making The p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n suggests t h a t without c a r e f u l l y s t r u c t u r e d or c o n t r i v e d t a s k s i n the second language classroom, l e a r n e r s are u n l i k e l y t o have enough o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r a c t i c e c e r t a i n forms, s p e c i f i c a l l y those r e l a t e d t o informed r e a s o n i n g and decision-making. Why, i n f a c t , i s i t 19 so v i t a l t o ensure t h a t students w i l l use t h i s type o f d i s c o u r s e i n the classroom? What e x a c t l y i s the d i f f e r e n c e between s i t u a t i o n s which r e q u i r e the use of decision-making language and those t h a t do not? Even though t h e r e has been a s h i f t from a grammar-oriented approach t o a communicative/ s i t u a t i o n a l / f u n c t i o n a l approach i n second language i n s t r u c t i o n , coming c l o s e r t o p r o v i d i n g l e a r n e r s w i t h a b e t t e r understanding o f a p p r o p r i a t e communication i n s p e c i f i c c o n t e x t s , the t y p i c a l s i t u a t i o n o f t e n stops s h o r t o f a l l o w i n g l e a r n e r s t o f u l l y e x p l o i t the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r language l e a r n i n g t h a t a " r e a l " s i t u a t i o n might i n v o l v e . Real l i f e s i t u a t i o n s almost always i n v o l v e some k i n d o f decision-making, and decision-making goes beyond the t y p i c a l a c t i v i t i e s used i n language i n s t r u c t i o n . In a d d i t i o n t o f a m i l i a r i z i n g l e a r n e r s w i t h the v o c a b u l a r y and b a s i c communicative s k i l l s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a s i t u a t i o n , d e c i s i o n - making r e q u i r e s the l e a r n e r t o understand the concepts o f e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e . A c c o r d i n g t o Mohan (1986), " T a l k about c h o i c e i s t a l k which goes beyond the l i m i t s o f the immediate s i t u a t i o n and c a l l s f o r a wider language p o t e n t i a l . From the decision-making p o i n t o f view, a person i n an a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n i s making reasoned c h o i c e s about what t o say and what t o do....(the decision-making s i t u a t i o n ) o f f e r s a n o n l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t o f p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge which can be made e x p l i c i t i n d i s c o u r s e " (p. 5 5 ) . R e l a t i n g Mohan's concept of knowledge s t r u c t u r e s t o decision-making, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t the decision-making s i t u a t i o n , i n r e q u i r i n g the e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e o f 20 a l t e r n a t i v e s , a l s o i n v o l v e s the language stemming from the o t h e r knowledge s t r u c t u r e s . Before e v a l u a t i n g , a person must be a b l e 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 , c l a s s i f y them o r p o r t i o n s of them i n terms of c a t e g o r i e s one has p r e v i o u s l y l e a r n e d , understand accepted p r i n c i p l e s or r u l e s r e l a t e d t o the s i t u a t i o n , which w i l l h e l p i n p r e d i c t i n g what outcomes may occur as a r e s u l t of a p a r t i c u l a r c h o i c e . T h e r e f o r e , the decision-making s i t u a t i o n i s the most s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n terms of i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r e l i c i t i n g language and i n i t s demands f o r l i n g u i s t i c e x p l i c i t n e s s on the p a r t of the l e a r n e r . I t i s necessary t o e x p l o r e more deeply what l i n g u i s t i c e x p l i c i t n e s s means, t h a t i s , what the a c t u a l t a l k i s l i k e . U s i n g a c t u a l classroom d i s c o u r s e from f i r s t language content classrooms, Smith e t a l (19 67) demonstrate how u n i t s of d i s c o u r s e can be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o "ventures", depending on the speaker's o b j e c t i v e s . For example, a "reason v e n t u r e " concerns "the reasons someone has f o r doing something or f o r d e c i d i n g t o do something" or "something a person takes i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e c i d i n g t o perform an a c t i o n " (p.27). Reasons can be based on i n t e n t i o n t o achieve a purpose o r on a r u l e which a u t h o r i z e s s p e c i f i c a c t i o n . Four s p e c i f i c moves i n reason ventures are i d e n t i f i e d : a c t i o n , purpose, r u l e and f a c t u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , each of which i n t e r a c t s w i t h the o t h e r s i n completing a r e a s o n - a c t i o n venture, and each of which may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s e v e r a l sub-moves. S i m i l a r l y , " e v a l u a t i v e v e n t u r e s " i n v o l v e the a p p l i c a t i o n of 21 some v a l u e term t o an o b j e c t , which may be a b e l i e f , an a c t i o n , a person, an event, o r any t h i n g t h a t can be ev a l u a t e d . In order t o j u s t i f y a r a t i n g o r e v a l u a t i o n , "one should be a b l e t o e x p l i c a t e the v a l u e term and...provide c r i t e r i a o f i t s a p p l i c a t i o n " (p.33). P r o v i d i n g c r i t e r i a r e q u i r e s an a b i l i t y t o d e s c r i b e the "value o b j e c t " as w e l l as a knowledge of and a b i l i t y t o d e s c r i b e the p r o p e r t i e s t h a t would make t h a t v a l u e o b j e c t i d e a l . T h i s knowledge may come from both academic l e a r n i n g and p e r s o n a l experience, but i n e i t h e r case r e q u i r e s a p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f p r e v i o u s knowledge. Looking s p e c i f i c a l l y a t s i t u a t i o n s which r e q u i r e e v a l u a t i o n and reasoning, what i s the a c t u a l nature o f the t a l k which occurs? Mohan (1985) l i n k s n o t i o n a l language as i t i s t r e a t e d i n the Communicative Grammar of E n g l i s h (Leech and S v a r t v i k , 1975) wit h the t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i s knowledge framework. The language a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e v a l u a t i o n w i l l i n c l u d e d e s c r i b i n g emotions, u s i n g a d j e c t i v e s such as s a t i s f a c t o r y , u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , o r ex p r e s s i o n s such as l i k e and d i s l i k e ; s t a t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s ; i n v o k i n g standards such as good/bad or right/wrong; s t a t i n g p o i n t s o f view and wishes. The language a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c h o i c e w i l l i n c l u d e e x p r e s s i o n s o f o p i n i o n such as " I t h i n k " and " i n my o p i n i o n " ; use of modals (should, must, can) when su g g e s t i n g p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s ( g i v i n g a d v i c e ) ; commands; re q u e s t s ; e x p r e s s i o n s o f i n t e n t i o n , w i l l i n g n e s s and pe r m i s s i o n . 22 The classroom r e s e a r c h t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t o the concept of "ventures", and f u r t h e r work by Smith and Meux (1970) i n d i c a t e t h a t p a r t i c u l a r types o f p r e s e n t a t i o n are necessary t o encourage students t o f u l l y e x p l o r e a "value q u e s t i o n " and by e x t e n s i o n , a l l o w f o r the a p p r o p r i a t e language t o be used. In any content d i s c u s s i o n , a t e a c h e r has the o p t i o n t o p r e s e n t q u e s t i o n s t h a t o n l y r e q u i r e f a c t u a l answers, or to i n c l u d e those t h a t s t i m u l a t e students t o e x p l o r e a l t e r n a t i v e s , d i s c u s s c r i t e r i a , assemble f a c t s , and make reasoned judgements. S i m i l a r l y , as mentioned e a r l i e r , Staab (1986) found t h a t the language o f f o r e c a s t i n g / r e a s o n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n / c h o i c e were bes t e l i c i t e d through s p e c i f i c types of q u e s t i o n s by the teacher, not by an a c t i v i t y alone. And not u n r e l a t e d i s r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t i n g t h a t r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s , which r e q u i r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r o p i n i o n , e l i c i t l o n g e r and more complex responses than do d i s p l a y q u e s t i o n s , which c a l l f o r the r e c o g n i t i o n o r r e c a l l o f f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n (Brock, 1986). So although the work of Smith and Meux i s concerned w i t h v a l u e s c l a r i f i c a t i o n i n the content classroom, i t o f f e r s a s t r o n g argument f o r u s i n g a more e x p l o r a t o r y technique i n the second language classroom, i n l i g h t o f i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t the language of e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e w i l l be e l i c i t e d o n l y i n s i t u a t i o n s which r e q u i r e t h a t s p e c i f i c mode of t h i n k i n g . 23 "Constructed decision" tasks Research has been c i t e d s t r e s s i n g the need f o r classroom t a s k s or 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 designed and q u e s t i o n s s t r u c t u r e d i n order t o encourage the d e s i r e d type o f thought and d i s c o u r s e . Since i n t e r a c t i o n r e s e a r c h has i n d i c a t e d t h a t l e a r n e r s are capable o f c a r r y i n g on a c t i v i t i e s i n smal l groups independent o f the teacher, i n which they get more o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e than i n a t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d s i t u a t i o n , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t numerous commercial t e x t s have become a v a i l a b l e which i n c l u d e c o l l a b o r a t i v e , small group d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s for the adult second-language classroom. These a c t i v i t i e s are o f t e n designed so they can be completed w i t h i n one c l a s s meeting, so they u s u a l l y r e v o l v e around a l i m i t e d pre-determined problem s i t u a t i o n . Students are t y p i c a l l y p r o v i d e d with a b r i e f p r e s e n t a t i o n o f background i n f o r m a t i o n , a statement o f the problem and a c h o i c e o f a l t e r n a t i v e s t o d i s c u s s . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, the d e c i s i o n ( s ) t o be made i s / a r e predetermined o r c o n s t r u c t e d for the l e a r n e r ; t h e r e f o r e these t a s k s are r e f e r r e d t o as " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " t a s k s throughout t h i s study. Some t e x t s i n d i c a t e an understanding t h a t d e c i s i o n making s i t u a t i o n s have a p a r t i c u l a r v alue f o r p r o d u c i n g what i s b e i n g r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s paper as decision-making language. For example, the t e x t React Interact (Byrd & Clemente-Cabetas, 1980) l i n k s communicative f u n c t i o n s with 24 grammatical forms w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c problem s i t u a t i o n . In one a c t i v i t y , the f u n c t i o n s " e x p r e s s i n g o p i n i o n s " and " d e s c r i b i n g " are l i n k e d with comparisons and c o n t r a s t s , i f c l a u s e s , and modals. S i m i l a r l y , i n an a c t i v i t y from the t e x t Decisions, Decisions (Bowers & Godfrey, 1985), "make su g g e s t i o n s " and " p r e d i c t outcomes" are l i n k e d t o the grammar p o i n t s " c l a u s e formation; (and) a d v e r b i a l - con c e s s i o n , reason, r e s u l t , c o n d i t i o n " . In a d d i t i o n i t i s s t a t e d i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h i s t e x t t h a t "many of the i s s u e s l e n d themselves t o r e s e a r c h : f o r example, what i s the d i f f e r e n c e between a l i n e o f c r e d i t , a p e r s o n a l l o a n and a mortgage, what i s a union, what does i t do, and what are the l e g a l requirements f o r a day—care c e n t r e " , which o f f e r s the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r students t o t a l k about d e c i s i o n s based on background i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t they may a c t u a l l y use i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s . While t e x t s l i k e these demonstrate some r e s p o n s i b l e tendency toward r e l a t i n g d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s t o r e a l l i f e , s e v e r a l shortcomings are apparent. One i s t h a t the content may s t i l l not be r e l e v a n t f o r a l l a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s i n a c l a s s . E a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n d e a l t w i t h the importance o f decision-making s i t u a t i o n s b e i n g t r u e t o r e a l i t y ; the content o f these a c t i v i t i e s should be t r u e t o the r e a l i t y o f the m a j o r i t y o f a d u l t ESL students i n a classroom. In the K-12 sc h o o l system, language can be i n t e g r a t e d with s u b j e c t matter i n the c u r r i c u l u m . I f content i s pr e s e n t e d w i t h Mohan's (1986) knowledge framework i n mind, students should 25 become i n c r e a s i n g l y a b l e t o use t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c o u r s e t h a t r e l a t e s t o the t h i n k i n g processes they employ when completing a type of t a s k . E d u c a t i o n a l t a s k s i n the K-12 system are the r e a l i t y of a s c h o o l c u r r i c u l u m . T a l k i n g about d i v o r c e or world i s s u e s or even employment are not n e c e s s a r i l y the shared r e a l i t y o f a c l a s s o f a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s . The second and perhaps more s e r i o u s shortcoming a c t u a l l y stems from the same r o o t . One reason why s h o r t , w e l l packaged i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s are o f t e n used i n the a d u l t ESL c l a s s i s t h a t t h e r e i s u s u a l l y no content c u r r i c u l u m . But these packaged a c t i v i t i e s l e a v e v e r y l i t t l e room f o r e x p l o r a t i o n , and hence, l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e a l l i n g u i s t i c expansion. T h i s can be c o n t r a s t e d , f o r example, with t a s k s suggested i n the t e x t ESL for Action; Problem-Posing at Work ( W a l l e r s t e i n & Auerbach, 1987), which o f f e r s examples o f p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n s workers may face, but leaves i t up t o the l e a r n e r s t o determine the problem, the source o f the problem, and p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s . D i s c u s s i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e s i s based on r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s o f t e n r e s e a r c h themselves. Recent r e s e a r c h suggests t h a t most a d u l t ESL a c t i v i t i e s do not simulate r e a l l i f e because the problems and p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s are a l r e a d y l a i d out ( B r i c e - Heath, 1989). Making t a s k s more r e a l means g i v i n g students ownership of the problems by l e t t i n g them f i g u r e out when a d e c i s i o n needs t o be made and e x p l o r e t h e i r own s o l u t i o n s , 26 which would r e q u i r e them t o use t h e i r e x i s t i n g knowledge and s e a r c h f o r new knowledge as they see the need. W a l l e r s t e i n and Auerbach s t a t e t h a t when content comes from the s t u d e n t s , i t i s "a powerful m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r i n language a c q u i s i t i o n " (p.2). Students l e a r n t o r e c o g n i z e a code, or r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a s i t u a t i o n , which has the purpose of promoting c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g and a c t i o n , and i s a s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r language. T h i s concept of a l i n k between c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g i n d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s and the p r o d u c t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e language i s s i m i l a r t o the concepts i n h e r e n t i n Mohan's knowledge framework or Smith e t a l ' s d i s c o u r s e v e n t u r e s . The d i s c u s s i o n moves from the c o n c r e t e t o the a n a l y t i c a l , i n c l u d i n g d e s c r i b i n g the s i t u a t i o n , d e f i n i n g the problem, r e l a t i n g s i m i l a r experiences, q u e s t i o n i n g why t h e r e i s a problem, and d i s c u s s i n g p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . The purpose of d i s c u s s i n g t h i s approach f o r u s i n g d e c i s i o n making i n the s p e c i f i c c ontext of the workplace i s t o demonstrate the p o s s i b i l i t y of s i m u l a t i n g r e a l d e c i s i o n s i n the classroom. The "problem-posing" approach o r i g i n a t e d f o r the s p e c i f i c purpose of empowering a group o f people w i t h a common problem t o take c o n t r o l of t h e i r l i v e s through l i t e r a c y e d u c a t i o n t h a t i n v o l v e d c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g and a c t i o n . I t has been adapted f o r ESL c l a s s e s but some c r i t e r i a do e x i s t , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t i t must be t a i l o r e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r community or c l a s s , so t h a t the content i s r e l e v a n t . 27 One problem then, i s t o determine content which w i l l 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 of v a r i e d g o a l s , i n t e r e s t s and academic s k i l l backgrounds. In a d d i t i o n i t must expose them t o both the p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l language o f d e c i s i o n making, i n a context where they have the o p p o r t u n i t y t o determine the problem, and e x p l o r e s o l u t i o n s t h a t emerge from both p e r s o n a l and academic knowledge of the s i t u a t i o n . I t must begin w i t h a p r a c t i c a l t a s k but move t o e x p o s i t o r y l e a r n i n g (Mohan, 1985: 101). In the e a r l y stages of second language a c q u i s i t i o n , an i n d i v i d u a l f i r s t needs t o l e a r n the language necessary f o r meeting immediate p r a c t i c a l needs. At t h i s p o i n t , content and language can be more e a s i l y i n t e g r a t e d i n the classroom, and the language does not move much beyond the here and now. As a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s move toward g r e a t e r language p r o f i c i e n c y however, assuming t h a t the g o a l i s t o f u n c t i o n i n more c o g n i t i v e l y demanding or academic s i t u a t i o n s , the content must become more t h e o r e t i c a l . The t a s k o r a c t i v i t y needs t o p r o v i d e a b r i d g e between what Cummins (1983) c a l l s context-embedded and context-reduced s i t u a t i o n s . To emphasize what has a l r e a d y been s t a t e d , i f t a l k i s t o be u s e f u l towards the development of both content knowledge and language p r o f i c i e n c y , i t needs t o focus on both the p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l aspects of a s i t u a t i o n . In t r y i n g t o b r i d g e the gap between a d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n t h a t r e v o l v e s around a p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n i n an ESL classroom and one t h a t might be faced i n an academic content classroom, one 28 p o s s i b i l i t y i s t o focus on the t a s k of w r i t t e n composition as a c o n t e x t f o r i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making. A d u l t ESL s t u d e n t s have a common need t o improve t h e i r s k i l l s i n w r i t t e n composition, and t h i s improvement depends on t h e i r d e v e l o p i n g and u s i n g a t h e o r e t i c a l background knowledge of the c r i t e r i a f o r a c c e p t a b l e w r i t i n g . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n w i l l d i s c u s s the c o g n i t i v e l i n k between w r i t t e n composition and the concepts and t h i n k i n g s k i l l s o f e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e . Recent r e s e a r c h on c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n of compositions w i l l a l s o be d e s c r i b e d . Decision-making and composing Ever s i n c e composition r e s e a r c h began t o focus on the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s r a t h e r than e x c l u s i v e l y on product, w r i t i n g has been l i n k e d w i t h decision-making. Whether r e v i s i o n of compositions i s viewed as o c c u r r i n g p r i m a r i l y through a s e r i e s of d r a f t s , or as an ongoing process, i t i n v o l v e s i d e n t i f y i n g the need f o r change, e v a l u a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s , and choosing a course of a c t i o n . R e v i s i o n has been d e s c r i b e d as " r e - v i s i o n , or t a k i n g another look a t what has a l r e a d y been seen, but t h i s time from a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e " (Mayher, L e s t e r & P r a d l , 1983); as " r e t r a n s c r i b i n g " of t e x t a l r e a d y produced, when w r i t e r s d e c i d e " a f t e r r e v i e w i n g t e x t or t h e i r p l a n s , t h a t p o r t i o n s o f the t e x t are not what they had intended or not what t h e i r 29 r eaders need" (Nold, 1981); as s e e i n g " i n combination w i t h memory the f u l l e r r e a l i t y " (Lloyd-Jones, 1981); as " s u b s t a n t i v e change — r e - s e e i n g , r e s t r u c t u r i n g , even r e c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the e n t i r e d i s c o u r s e " (Flower, Hayes e t a l , 1986). In other words, r e v i s i n g i n v o l v e s comparing one's e x i s t i n g t e x t to one's i n t e n t i o n s and one's knowledge, e v a l u a t i n g whether i n t e n t i o n s have been met, whether one's knowledge has been t r a n s l a t e d e f f e c t i v e l y , and then choosing a l t e r n a t i v e s i f changes need t o be made. Linking choices to knowledge What te a c h e r s and r e s e a r c h e r s f i n d , however, i s t h a t u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s do not r e a l i z e the need f o r t a k i n g the s t e p t o t r a n s f o r m i n g t h e i r w r i t i n g f o r a reader (Mayher, L e s t e r & P r a d l , 1983); t h a t i n f a c t they are o f t e n not aware of the c h o i c e s they do make, but f e e l t h a t the way they w r i t e i s i n e v i t a b l e (Smith, 1982) ; t h a t they do not r e l a t e v a r i o u s p a r t s o f the t e x t t o an o v e r a l l d i s c o u r s e theme (Perera, 1984); and t h a t even when they l o c a t e a problem and want t o r e v i s e , they are unable t o generate a more p r o m i s i n g s o l u t i o n (Nold, 1981). Martlew (1983) suggests t h a t poor w r i t e r s adopt h a b i t u a l ways of approaching a t a s k and may not even r e a l i z e when a t a s k i s d i f f i c u l t and consequently remain unaware o f t h e i r problems; not only do they not r e a l i z e in what ways t h e i r w r i t i n g i s inadequate but they do not know how t o make changes. C l a i m i n g t h a t w r i t e r s must become aware of how t o u t i l i z e knowledge and s t r u c t u r e 30 language, Martlew c i t e s F l a v e l l ' s (1974) work on m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s , which i n v o l v e " r e f l e c t i n g on the p r o p e r t i e s o f language and i n communicative terms, b e i n g a b l e t o c o n s c i o u s l y s e l e c t , e v a l u a t e , r e v i s e , and r e j e c t what i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n terms o f g i v e n s i t u a t i o n s and l i s t e n e r s / s p e a k e r s " (p. 307). F l a v e l l ' s model of r o l e - t a k i n g s k i l l s , t o develop the a b i l i t y t o r e f l e c t and a c t d e l i b e r a t e l y , c o n s i s t s of f o u r s t e p s : 1 ) r e c o g n i z e a need e x i s t s ; 2 ) r e c o g n i z e a c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d ; 3 ) f i n d ways of a c t i n g upon the awareness of t h i s need; and 4 ) m a i n t a i n t h i s awareness and a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n over time. T h i s model i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the concept of decision-making d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , where m a i n t a i n i n g awareness and l i n k i n g i t w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e 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 knowledge from s i t u a t i o n t o s i t u a t i o n . The " c o g n i t i v e process t h e o r y of composing" (Flower and Hayes, 1981), sees w r i t i n g as a r e c u r s i v e p r o c e s s of decision-making and a l s o addresses the q u e s t i o n of what c r i t e r i a govern the choice's w r i t e r s make. The f i r s t c r i t e r i a i s a p p a r e n t l y the w r i t e r ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the r h e t o r i c a l problem, which i n c l u d e s "not o n l y the r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n and audience which prompts one t o w r i t e , i t a l s o i n c l u d e s the w r i t e r ' s own g o a l s i n w r i t i n g " (p. 369). An i n a c c u r a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the r h e t o r i c a l problem can prevent the w r i t e r from a t t e n d i n g t o , not t o mention s o l v i n g , v a r i o u s p a r t s of the problem along the way. Beyond understanding the r h e t o r i c a l problem, the w r i t e r f a c e s the 31 t a s k s o f drawing knowledge from l o n g term memory; s e t t i n g a g o a l , g e n e r a t i n g and o r g a n i z i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , t r a n s l a t i n g t h i s i n t o w r i t i n g ; and reviewing, e v a l u a t i n g and r e v i s i n g the t e x t produced so f a r . Flower and Hayes s t r e s s t h a t the w r i t e r i s d i r e c t e d by h i s / h e r own network of g o a l s . These are c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o p r o c e s s g o a l s , which d i r e c t what the w r i t e r does t o c a r r y out the pro c e s s , and content g o a l s , which s p e c i f y what the w r i t e r says o r the e f f e c t he wants t o have on an audience. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l s may be a combination o f the two typ e s . Flower and Hayes c l a i m t h a t s k i l l e d w r i t e r s seem t o have automatic o r standard c r i t e r i a and e x p e c t a t i o n s governing t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n o f a need f o r change. They not o n l y have more con s c i o u s (but i n t e r n a l i z e d ) c o n t r o l over t h e i r own proc e s s but are a b l e t o do g o a l - d i r e c t e d searches f o r content which i n v o l v e s e x p l o r i n g and c o n s o l i d a t i n g t h e i r e x i s t i n g knowledge. The major p o i n t t h a t Flower and Hayes r a i s e i s t h a t c h o i c e s made d u r i n g composing r e l a t e d i r e c t l y t o the w r i t e r ' s understanding o f the demands of a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n ; h i s knowledge of requirements o f d i f f e r e n t genres; background knowledge of the t o p i c ; and perhaps most i m p o r t a n t l y h i s c o n t r o l over an a b i l i t y t o c r e a t e a top l e v e l g o a l , e x p l o r e sub-goals, and r e - e v a l u a t e i n terms of the o r i g i n a l o r r e v i s e d h i g h e r - l e v e l g o a l . Less p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s tend t o operate by a "what next?" s t r a t e g y as opposed t o i n t e n t i o n o r g o a l d i r e c t e d behaviour. 32 B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1981) suggest t h a t u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s may l a c k the " i n t e r n a l feedback system which a l l o w s r e v i s i o n or e v a l u a t i o n t o become p a r t of the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s " (p.35). They i d e n t i f y a need f o r " e x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e o f n o t i n g t h a t something i s not r i g h t , t r y i n g t o do something about i t , and n o t i n g whether or not the e f f o r t succeeds" (p. 39) i n o r d e r t o develop the i n t e r n a l feedback system which i s v i t a l f o r a l l l e v e l s of r e v i s i o n . Again, these can be d i r e c t l y l i n k e d t o the knowledge s t r u c t u r e s of e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e . B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia found t h a t c h i l d r e n can be t r a i n e d t o c o n s c i o u s l y use t h e i r funds of knowledge f o r p u r p o s e f u l p l a n n i n g and r e v i s i n g . T h i s i n v o l v e s the a b i l i t y t o r e d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n from the o r i g i n a l t e x t and t o d e l i b e r a t e l y b r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s t o mind a t the r i g h t time. They found t h a t the development of " a c c e s s i b l y coded knowledge and o f e x e c u t i v e procedures f o r a s s e s s i n g i t " (p. 44) may be a i d e d by 1)formal t e a c h i n g of r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e s such as s t r a t e g i e s f o r h i g h l i g h t i n g i d e a s ; 2)sentence combining; and 3 ) r e a d i n g — i f students read w i t h a w r i t e r ' s a l e r t n e s s t o technique. An i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r may have e x t e n s i v e background knowledge on a t o p i c and may even have co n c e p t u a l knowledge about the s t r u c t u r a l elements of the t e x t he wants t o produce, but l a c k s the " f u n c t i o n a l means of u s i n g t h i s knowledge" (p.50). T h e r e f o r e , t a s k s must h e l p students t o "draw on t h e i r conceptual knowledge and t o make i t p r o c e d u r a l " (p. 45). B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia c l a i m t h a t 33 i t i s the engagement i n problem s o l v i n g t a s k s which ge t s p r o c e d u r a l knowledge "harnessed t o g o a l s " (p. 45). Flower, Hayes e t a l (1986) i d e n t i f y two key, interdependent v a r i a b l e s u n d e r l y i n g the d e c i s i o n s made i n r e v i s i o n : knowledge, or the a b i l i t y t o r e c o g n i z e f e a t u r e s o f the t e x t and d e t e c t and d e a l w i t h problems; and i n t e n t i o n , which i n c l u d e s the r e v i s e r ' s image o f the t a s k as w e l l as g o a l s and c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i o n . T h e i r model of the p r o c e s s o f r e v i s i o n i n v o l v e s an i n t e r p l a y between the e v a l u a t i o n -> s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n process and the sequence of g o a l -> problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n -> i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a v a i l a b l e s t r a t e g i e s . The model i n v o l v e s a continuum w i t h problem r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , or i l l d e f i n e d " d e t e c t i o n s " a t one end and d i a g n o s i s , which i s w e l l - d e f i n e d and c a r r i e s i m p l i e d s t r a t e g i e s f o r problem s o l v i n g , a t the ot h e r . Depending on whether the problem has been " d e t e c t e d " o r "diagnosed", the s e l e c t e d s t r a t e g y w i l l g e n e r a l l y be " r e w r i t e " i n the f i r s t case and " r e v i s e " i n the l a t t e r . The r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g y i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e i s some j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the change, t h a t i s , the w r i t e r i s e v a l u a t i n g the s i t u a t i o n u s i n g some k i n d o f c r i t e r i a . Although the d e t e c t / r e w r i t e s t r a t e g y ("running the o r i g i n a l g i s t through the mental sentence generator") may work i n some s i t u a t i o n s , problems can a r i s e when the w r i t e r does not have a g l o b a l p l a n and does not know why the f i r s t t e x t was inadequate. For any problems s u s c e p t i b l e t o d i a g n o s i s , the d i a g n o s e / r e v i s e s t r a t e g y should be used. T h i s i n v o l v e s r e c o g n i z i n g and c a t e g o r i z i n g 34 problems, and b u i l d i n g up a r e p e r t o r y o f meaningful p a t t e r n s (Flower, Hayes e t a l . compare i t t o c h e s s ) . T h i s a l l o w s the w r i t e r t o sepa r a t e the problem from o t h e r n o i s e and focus on s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s ; m a i n t a i n v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f awareness depending on what i s needed; b r i n g p a s t knowledge t o bear; and p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n by imagining a rea d e r ' s response. I t i s e v i d e n t from the p r e v i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t composing i s r e l a t e d t o Mohan's (1986) concept o f c h o i c e . Whether d e c i s i o n s concern the conventions o f w r i t t e n language; r e l a t i n g purpose, content, and o r g a n i z a t i o n t o audience needs; word c h o i c e ; o r requirements such as l a y o u t , s i g n a l i n g and cohesion (Nold, 1982), i t i s c l e a r t h a t s k i l l i n w r i t i n g i n v o l v e s making c h o i c e s based on t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge, and r e q u i r e s an a b i l i t y t o form a s t r a t e g y by l i n k i n g g o a l s and knowledge. In or d e r t o l e a r n t o access and use background knowledge, Nold c l a i m s t h a t s t u d e n t s need e x p l i c i t i n d i c a t i o n s o f inadequacies o f meaning i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . F a i g l e y and Witte (1981) c a t e g o r i z e r e v i s i o n i n t o s u r f a c e changes (grammar, mechanics, and minor meaning- p r e s e r v i n g changes) and te x t - b a s e d changes (changes i n meaning). They found t h a t i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s made mostly s u r f a c e changes, and the few meaning changes made were minor adjustments, p a r t i c u l a r l y a d d i t i o n s . More experien c e d student w r i t e r s made more changes t h a t i n v o l v e d c o n s i d e r a b l y r e s t r u c t u r i n g the t e x t . B a s i c a l l y , F a i g l e y and Witt e conclude t h a t s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n r e s u l t s not from the 35 number of changes a w r i t e r makes but from the type o f change, and the degree t o which changes " b r i n g a t e x t c l o s e r t o f i t t i n g the demands of a s i t u a t i o n " (p. 411). The a b i l i t y t o make these changes e f f e c t i v e l y seems t o be r e l a t e d t o the s t r a t e g y a w r i t e r uses a f t e r d e t e c t i n g a problem. Cumming (1987), i n a study o f a d u l t ESL s tudents who were e i t h e r expert, i n t e r m e d i a t e o r b a s i c w r i t e r s i n t h e i r f i r s t language (French), found t h a t the way a w r i t e r approaches or a t t a c k s a problem i n w r i t i n g can range from simply making a statement or i d e n t i f y i n g a problem t o u s i n g any of a v a r i e t y of h e u r i s t i c search s t r a t e g i e s f o r e v a l u a t i n g the problem and r e a c h i n g a s o l u t i o n . Whereas more p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s e v a l u a t e d and r e s o l v e d problems through searches, l e s s p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s were a b l e t o i d e n t i f y problems t o the same extent, but r a r e l y e v a l u a t e d o r r e s o l v e d them through a search. They d i d , however, f r e q u e n t l y r e s o l v e problems without a search, which c o u l d be compared t o Flower, Hayes e t a l . ' s d e t e c t - r e w r i t e s t r a t e g y i n r e v i s i o n . A pparently b a s i c w r i t e r s d i d not know how t o apply a search and u s u a l l y l e f t problems r e q u i r i n g a s e a r c h unevaluated and unsolved. Cumming's r e s e a r c h looks a t w r i t i n g a b i l i t y and second language p r o f i c i e n c y of ESL students as two s e p a r a t e c o n t r i b u t o r s t o q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g i n the second language. R e s u l t s support the i d e a t h a t c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s u n d e r l i e w r i t i n g a b i l i t y and t h a t w r i t i n g a b i l i t y may extend a c r o s s languages. Cumming suggests t h a t expert w r i t e r s ' a b i l i t y t o 36 perform may be due t o an a d d i t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n a l c a p a c i t y and r e l e v a n t t o p i c knowledge; an o p e r a t i o n a l knowledge of r h e t o r i c a l problems which "provides more expert w r i t e r s with a b a s i s f o r i n s t a n t i a t i n g s u b s t a n t i v e knowledge i n r h e t o r i c a l forms" but which "appears t o r e q u i r e a unique p r o c e d u r a l knowledge t o be put i n t o w r i t i n g " (p. 189); and/or an a b i l i t y t o "transform" t h e i r knowledge as they w r i t e , as opposed t o the way l e s s p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s " t e l l " t h e i r knowledge. Cumming suggests a r e v i s i o n o f the commonly accepted ( i n recent years) i d e a t h a t ESL students should a t t e n d f i r s t and foremost t o meaning; i n s t e a d students must be encouraged t o focus on the g i s t (meaning) in r e l a t i o n t o other aspects of t h e i r w r i t i n g such as language use, d i s c o u r s e o r g a n i z a t i o n and i n t e n t i o n s . In o t h e r words, they need t o c o n s t a n t l y b r i n g t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge t o bear as they a t t e n d t o each w r i t i n g t a s k . A d d i t i o n a l evidence t h a t decision-making i n w r i t i n g i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e o r e t i c a l background knowledge can be drawn from Meyer's LI and C a r e l l ' s L2 (1984, 1987) r e s e a r c h which i n d i c a t e s t h a t t e a c h i n g students t o r e c o g n i z e t o p - l e v e l r h e t o r i c a l s t r u c t u r e i n w r i t t e n t e x t can a i d i n comprehension. B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia's s u g g e s t i o n t h a t students must "read w i t h a w r i t e r ' s a l e r t n e s s t o technique", i m p l i e s t h a t a c q u i r i n g an a l e r t n e s s t o technique or t o the s i g n a l s of h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e should c a r r y over i n t o the student's own w r i t i n g . Connor (1987) found t h a t i n s t r u c t i n g students i n 37 t o p i c a l s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s c o u l d be u s e f u l as a r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g y , t o check f o r coherence i n t h e i r own w r i t i n g : " i t encourages students t o c o n s i d e r and r e c o n s i d e r the t e x t as a whole and all o w s them t o gauge f o r themselves the r e l a t i v e coherence o f t h e i r w r i t i n g " (p.683). Benton and Blohm (1986) found t h a t adjunct q u e s t i o n s g i v e n t o the students a f t e r the w r i t i n g o f the f i r s t d r a f t enabled the students t o e l a b o r a t e on t h e i r t e x t s w i t h deeper l e v e l s o f p r o c e s s i n g . The ques t i o n s were designed t o get w r i t e r s t o draw more e x t e n s i v e l y upon p r e v i o u s or e x i s t i n g knowledge, and t o t h i n k about the t o p i c i n d i f f e r e n t ways, t o l e a d them t o produce l e n g t h i e r and more e l a b o r a t e passages. The ques t i o n s were both g e n e r a l (drawing on r h e t o r i c a l knowledge) and s p e c i f i c t o the t o p i c . S i m i l a r l y , B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1987) demonstrate how p r o v i d i n g the w r i t e r with cues can f a c i l i t a t e the development of b e t t e r s t r a t e g i e s . T h i s i s based on the i d e a t h a t a w r i t e r must use the s t r a t e g i e s o f "compare, diagnose, o p e r a t e " t o work through the problem s o l v i n g p rocess i n w r i t i n g . Students were gi v e n cues t o h e l p them e v a l u a t e t h e i r work by a p p l y i n g c r i t e r i a , and then choose the a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n or diagnose s p e c i f i c problems and suggest s o l u t i o n s . Although B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia tend t o advocate the use of these r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s during the w r i t i n g o f the o r i g i n a l d r a f t , the study d i d show t h a t when the cues were given after the f i r s t d r a f t was w r i t t e n , r e v i s i o n d i d improve. 38 B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1987) o f f e r a model of the r e f l e c t i v e processes used i n w r i t i n g c a l l e d the dual problem space model o f r e f l e c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s model, t h e r e i s an i n t e r a c t i o n between the content space, r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i d e a p r o d u c t i o n , and the r h e t o r i c a l space, s p e c i f i c a l l y t i e d t o t e x t p r o d u c t i o n . R e f l e c t i o n w i t h i n the content space occurs i n everyday l i f e , when one uses one's knowledge and b e l i e f s as the b a s i s f o r o p i n i o n s , e x p l a n a t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s . R e f l e c t i o n w i t h i n the r h e t o r i c a l space concerns p l a n s f o r a c h i e v i n g purposes i n composition, and i s based on r h e t o r i c a l knowledge and s k i l l s . B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia c l a i m t h a t although novice w r i t e r s are able t o convert knowledge, or output from the content space, i n t o r h e t o r i c a l subgoals, or i n p u t f o r the r h e t o r i c a l space, they have d i f f i c u l t y going back t o the content space when f a c e d w i t h a r h e t o r i c a l problem. They contend t h a t Murray's (1978) c l a i m t h a t w r i t i n g i s an a i d t o understanding can onl y be t r u e i f t h e r e i s an i n t e r a c t i o n between the two spaces. What i s most i n t e r e s t i n g here i s the s i m i l a r i t y w i t h r e f l e c t i v e models o f language l e a r n i n g and l e a r n i n g i n g e n e r a l . The language and content i n t e r a c t i o n as d e s c r i b e d by Mohan (1985) i n v o l v e s an i n t e r p l a y between background knowledge and p r a c t i c a l t a s k s . W r i t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r composition r e p r e s e n t s a here-and-now s i t u a t i o n , but d e c i s i o n s depend both on the a b i l i t y t o put t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge t o use, and on knowing what background knowledge needs t o be p u l l e d out f o r a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n . 39 B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia's " p r o c e d u r a l f a c i l i t a t i o n " i s designed t o improve a w r i t e r ' s autonomous a b i l i t y t o r e f l e c t w ithout an i n t e r m e d i a t e s t a t e o f depending on another person's i n p u t . 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 cues t h a t w i l l h e l p him a l t e r n a t e between the two problem spaces. Other l i t e r a t u r e , however, demonstrates the use o f s i m i l a r t e c h n i q u e s i n the context o f te a c h e r - s t u d e n t c o n f e r e n c i n g and peer c o n f e r e n c i n g . 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 Beach ( 1 9 8 6 ) suggests the use of t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t c o n f e r e n c i n g t o h e l p students begin t o assess t h e i r own w r i t i n g by l e a r n i n g what t o look f o r d u r i n g r e v i s i o n . Students are l e d through the processes o f 1 ) d e s c r i b i n g t o p i c and audience r e l a t e d g o a l s and r h e t o r i c a l s t r a t e g i e s based on c r i t e r i a f o r the s p e c i f i c t e x t - t y p e ; 2 ) j u d g i n g the p e r c e i v e d problems; and 3 ) s e l e c t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e r e v i s i o n s t o d e a l w i t h these problems. Beach c l a i m s students need t o be t r a i n e d t o understand the c r i t e r i a i m p l i e d by t h e i r own i n t e n t i o n s . In the ju d g i n g stage students may need c o n s t a n t reminders o f c r i t e r i a t o h e l p them e v e n t u a l l y adopt a reade r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e and be abl e t o sense dissonance. They need t o l e a r n t o apply the c r i t e r i a , t o s p e c i f y a reason f o r each problem — such as t h a t something i s m i s s i n g o r why something must be changed. I f the problem i s not c l e a r l y d e f i n e d i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o make a c o r r e c t judgement. H i l l o c k s ( 1 9 8 6 ) c i t e s s e v e r a l s t u d i e s which i n d i c a t e 40 t h a t l e a r n e r - c e n t e r e d s m a l l group t a s k s i n v o l v i n g c r i t e r i a - based problem s o l v i n g can 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 and q u a l i t y . H i l l o c k s suggests t h a t the a p p l i c a t i o n o f c r i t e r i a by s tudents t o t h e i r own and o t h e r s ' w r i t i n g " r e s u l t s not on l y i n more e f f e c t i v e r e v i s i o n but i n s u p e r i o r f i r s t d r a f t s . . . t h a t the c r i t e r i a l e a r n e d a c t not o n l y as guides f o r r e v i s i o n but as guides f o r g e n e r a t i n g m a t e r i a l " (p.160). C l i f f o r d (1981) s t u d i e d peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n through the stages o f composing, f o l l o w i n g a h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d " i n v a r i a n t sequence" throughout 13 compositions. In s m a l l groups students responded t o each o t h e r s ' f i r s t d r a f t s u s i n g a feedback sheet which focused on c r i t e r i a s p e c i f i c t o each composition. Group work a p p a r e n t l y y i e l d e d compositions s u p e r i o r t o those of a c o n t r o l group. Nystrand (1986) s i m i l a r l y c l a i m s t h a t peer review i s necessary i n order t o t r a i n w r i t e r s t o "experiment w i t h t e x t o p t i o n s t h a t are e s s e n t i a l l y d e f i n e d by the need . f o r r e c i p r o c i t y (with reader) a t the l e v e l s o f t o p i c , comment and genre" (p. 179). Nystrand c i t e s r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t i n g t h a t peer review " c o n t r i b u t e s t o ga i n s i n c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g , o r g a n i z a t i o n , and a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s (Lagana, 1973); r e v i s i o n (Benson, 1979) ; a t t e n t i o n t o p r e w r i t i n g and i n c r e a s e d awareness of one's own w r i t i n g p rocesses (Nystrand, 1983); and w r i t e r c o n f i d e n c e (Fox, 1980)" (p. 180). He c l a i m s t h a t w r i t i n g groups t h a t work "have extended d i s c u s s i o n s o f s u b s t a n t i a l i s s u e s . . . c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f the w r i t e r ' s purpose, 41 o r g a n i z a t i o n , r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t , and adequate development" (p. 188). He f e e l s t h a t i n t e n s i v e peer review i s e f f e c t i v e because of the process of i n t e n s i v e problem s o l v i n g i n v o l v e d : "used i n t e n s i v e l y , i t c r e a t e s an environment somewhat l i k e the s o c i a l c o n t e x t of i n i t i a l language a c q u i s i t i o n , where the l e a r n e r can c o n t i n u o u s l y t e s t hypotheses about the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of w r i t t e n t e x t . . . i n V y g o t s k i a n terms, we may regard i n t e n s i v e peer review as a f o r m a t i v e s o c i a l arrangement i n which w r i t e r s become c o n s c i o u s l y aware of the f u n c t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f 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 elements of t e x t by managing them a l l i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of continuous reader feedback...the composing pr o c e s s e s and d i s c o u r s e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t w r i t e r s take from t h e i r groups l a r g e l y emerge i n ways t h a t are o f t e n e v i d e n t f i r s t i n the s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n of peer review" (p. 211). E f f e c t i v e use of group r e v i s i o n by ESL students i s r e p o r t e d by L i n g (1986), whose students respond o r a l l y t o each o t h e r s ' i n i t i a l d r a f t s , l i n e by l i n e , t o l e t each w r i t e r know what i s m i s s i n g or vague. L a t e r , a l s o i n s m a l l groups, l e a r n e r s h e l p each other c o r r e c t mechanics, based on a c r i t e r i a sheet developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h a t c l a s s . The e s s e n t i a l components of L i n g ' s program r e f l e c t what much of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t o be most b e n e f i c i a l f o r d e v e l o p i n g w r i t i n g s k i l l — c o l l a b o r a t i o n and problem s o l v i n g based on c r i t e r i a and s p e c i f i c s k i l l development. The p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n of LI and L2 r e s e a r c h on w r i t t e n composition demonstrates t h a t t h e r e i s g e n e r a l agreement on a number of i s s u e s . F i r s t , t h a t i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s seem t o a t t e n d t o more s u r f a c e o r meaning-preserving 42 changes i n r e v i s i o n may be due t o a l a c k of c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s which prevents them from a c c e s s i n g r e l e v a n t t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and from e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r w r i t i n g w i t h a r eader i n mind. Second, these s k i l l s seem t o be t e a c h a b l e u s i n g t e c h n i q u e s such as p r o v i d i n g r h e t o r i c a l cues and q u e s t i o n s which r e f l e c t c r i t e r i a . T h i r d , t h e r e i s an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t group work, f o r both LI and L2 students, i s a v i a b l e way of h e l p i n g s tudents l e a r n t o w r i t e w i t h an audience i n mind, and t h a t students i n t h e i r peer groups are capable of h e l p i n g each o t h e r focus on s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a . C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n : an i n t e r a c t i v e decision-making a c t i v i t y Cumming's (1987) r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t second language p r o f i c i e n c y does not a f f e c t the c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s i n v o l v e d i n the decision-making p r o c e s s e s i n composing, though n a t u r a l l y language p r o f i c i e n c y may a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of compositions i n o t h e r ways. Research has a l s o shown t h a t l e a r n e r s are capable of employing e r r o r treatment s t r a t e g i e s and c o u l d be g i v e n e x p l i c i t e r r o r m o n i t o r i n g t a s k s d u r i n g group work (Long and P o r t e r , 1985). I t can be i n f e r r e d t h a t second language l e a r n e r s should be a b l e t o be t r a i n e d i n the s k i l l s of r e v i s i o n u s i n g the second language and c o u l d l e a r n t o apply c r i t e r i a and monitor e x p l i c i t a s p e c t s of t h e i r p e e r s ' w r i t i n g . Group r e v i s i o n may have an added dimension, however, i n t h a t i t c o u l d be used as an i n t e r a c t i v e d e c i s i o n making t a s k 43 t h a t would e l i c i t o r a l e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e . S t u d i e s focused on the i n t e r a c t i n g b e n e f i t s of group work and L2 w r i t i n g have so f a r o n l y d e a l t w i t h t a l k about w r i t i n g as a way of improving w r i t i n g ; they have not a c t u a l l y i s o l a t e d i n s t a n c e s of v a l u a b l e t a l k . S i m i l a r l y the body of l i t e r a t u r e on c o - o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g i n d i c a t e s the v a l u e of s t r u c t u r e d group work f o r i n c r e a s e d content l e a r n i n g ( S l a v i n , 1987) and a l s o language l e a r n i n g (Bejarno, 1987), but does not focus on the a c t u a l t a l k i n the group t h a t may be c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the p r o c e s s of l e a r n i n g . For example, peers, working t o g e t h e r on a grammar worksheet may complete the t a s k and r e t a i n the i n f o r m a t i o n from i t , but the t a l k around the completion of the t a s k i s i g n o r e d i n the r e s e a r c h . I t may i n f a c t be the e x p o s i t o r y t a l k around the t a s k t h a t r e s u l t s i n the most language l e a r n i n g . Cazden (1988) p o i n t s out t h a t the s i g n i f i c a n c e of focused t a l k among peers i n the classroom i s t h a t i t p r o v i d e s "an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r students t o p r a c t i c e forms of academic d i s c o u r s e — the s p e c i a l ways ot t a l k i n g expected i n s c h o o l " (p. 134) . Students get the chance t o use language o f t e n l i m i t e d t o the t e a c h e r - r o l e , such as q u e s t i o n i n g , e x p l o r i n g and d i r e c t i n g ; they can p a r t i c i p a t e more f u l l y i n the language of t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g (Cazden, 1988) . T h i s i n v o l v e s both p r a c t i c a l ( c o n t e x t - r e l a t e d ) and t h e o r e t i c a l (background knowledge r e l a t e d ) t a l k , and where peers work t o g e t h e r t o complete classroom t a s k s t h i s t a l k should i n v o l v e the language of decision-making. 44 T h i s concept i s r e l e v a n t t o the use of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n as a language l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t y . S i n c e r e v i s i o n i s i n s e p a r a b l e from decision-making, i t f o l l o w s t h a t the "essence" (Staab, 1986) of the peer r e v i s i o n t a s k i s t h a t i t w i l l e l i c i t the f u n c t i o n s o f f o r e c a s t i n g / r e a s o n i n g ; i t i n v o l v e s the "knowledge s t r u c t u r e s " (Mohan, 1986) of e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e and should t h e r e f o r e generate the language of decision-making. F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t s tudents do use e v a l u a t i v e language i n the con t e x t o f the w r i t i n g group. Gere and Stevens (1985) e x p l o r e d the r o l e o f o r a l response i n shaping subsequent r e v i s i o n s i n c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t i n g , and analy s e d the t a l k o f w r i t i n g groups. They found t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f moves r e f e r r e d t o the content o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ' w r i t i n g , and o f t e n i n c l u d e d judgement or e v a l u a t i o n . The next most p r e v a l e n t type of move i n v o l v e d "suggestions t o the w r i t e r about changes i n wording, sentence s t r u c t u r e o r con t e n t " (p.92). In a d d i t i o n , i n t e r v i e w s w i t h t e a c h e r s r e v e a l e d reasons f o r u s i n g group work such as t o h e l p s t udents l e a r n t o watch f o r c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s r e f l e c t i n g the purposes o f the assignment, or t o g i v e students a chance t o see how t h e i r w r i t i n g a f f e c t e d o t h e r s so they c o u l d " i n t e r n a l i z e t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n and make whatever judgments they deem necessary" (p.87). Students a l s o found the procedure more u s e f u l than 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 l o o k i n g a t n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g t a l k , Gere and Stevens found t h a t the language c o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d , i n 45 t h i s case as l a r g e l y e v a l u a t i v e . Moreover, the authors found t h a t w r i t e r s d i d i n c o r p o r a t e t h e i r p e e r s ' s u g g e s t i o n s i n t o t h e i r r e v i s i o n s and even smal l changes g e n e r a l l y showed a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of t e x t t o the w r i t e r ' s i n t e n t i o n s , and so an a p p a r e n t l y g r e a t e r a b i l i t y t o t r a n s l a t e i n t e n t i o n s and t o p i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o w r i t i n g w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n t o audience and p r i n c i p l e s of r h e t o r i c . In a d d i t i o n , a p i l o t study was done by t h i s r e s e a r c h e r t o determine whether a d u l t ESL l e a r n e r s working i n p a i r s would use the language of decision-making and a l s o r e f e r t o background knowledge they had l e a r n e d i n c l a s s when d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . I t was found t h a t much o f the t a l k was e v a l u a t i v e , and the students r e f e r r e d t o p r i n c i p l e s o f r h e t o r i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and a l s o t o the use o f sentence combining s t r a t e g i e s (both of which they had been exposed t o i n c l a s s ) when making judgements and s u g g e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r p a r t n e r ' s w r i t i n g . As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , the t a s k of d e t e r m i n i n g r e l e v a n t c o ntent becomes more d i f f i c u l t w i t h a d u l t ESL s tudents a t an i n c r e a s e d p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l , and who have v a r i e d g o a l s , i n t e r e s t s and academic or s k i l l backgrounds. However, an i n t e r e s t i n improving the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e i r w r i t i n g i s u s u a l l y a common g o a l . In t h i s sense, "improving w r i t i n g s k i l l " can be seen as content. I f w r i t i n g i s a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l t o be developed, the v a r i o u s components of t h a t s k i l l can be addressed i n c l a s s . Although i t might seem on the 46 s u r f a c e t h a t t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g as a "separate s k i l l " i s o l a t e s i t from o t h e r language s k i l l s , i n f a c t , r e a d i n g , l i s t e n i n g and speaking are a l l v i t a l components of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n . The concepts, p r i n c i p l e s and v a l u e s r e l a t e d t o "good" w r i t i n g c o n s t i t u t e the background knowledge t o which group members can r e f e r i n d i s c u s s i n g , e v a l u a t i n g and making su g g e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o each o t h e r s ' w r i t i n g . I t i s w i t h t h i s concept i n mind t h a t the t a s k o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n i s e x p l o r e d i n the pr e s e n t study. Hypotheses Background and r a t i o n a l e From the p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n a number of concepts can be i s o l a t e d which support a l i n k between the t a s k o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n of compositions and the use of o r a l d e cision-making language. Both LI and L2 w r i t i n g p r o f i c i e n c y seem t o be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s and an a b i l i t y t o make d e c i s i o n s based on the w r i t e r ' s g o a l , background knowledge and p e r c e p t i o n of the r e a d e r ' s needs. Inexperienced w r i t e r s can be taught t o make d e c i s i o n s more e f f e c t i v e l y by f o c u s i n g a t t e n t i o n on p a r t i c u l a r stages of the d e c i s i o n p rocess and on p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t s o f w r i t i n g and r h e t o r i c a l s t r u c t u r e . C o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i n g among peers seems t o h e l p students become more s e n s i t i v e t o audience needs; p a r t i c i p a n t s are a b l e t o i d e n t i f y problems and suggest a l t e r n a t i v e s . By a p p l y i n g the concept o f 47 a c t i v i t y as a c o n t e x t f o r e l i c i t i n g s p e c i f i c language forms, i t seems l o g i c a l t h a t the t a s k of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n c o u l d e l i c i t the language of decision-making ( e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e ) . T h i s dimension of the 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 has not p r e v i o u s l y been e x p l o r e d . 48 The f o l l o w i n g diagram i l l u s t r a t e s a p o s s i b l e model f o r the c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n process as a b r i d g e between c o n t e x t - dependent p r a c t i c a l t a s k s and context-reduced academic t a s k s . While the p r a c t i c a l t a s k i s based on f a m i l i a r , student-produced m a t e r i a l , the d i s c u s s i o n and d e c i s i o n - making depends on t h e o r e t i c a l background knowledge. Decision-making language i s generated and t h e o r e t i c a l knowlege i s r e i n f o r c e d . 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 essay r e v i s i o n Background Knowledge T h e o r e t i c a l Content Knowledge about W r i t i n g GROUP WORK I reinforcement generalization 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 l i k e s / d i s l i k e s j u s t i f y i n g opinions 49 The p r e s e n t study compared two components of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n (content/meaning r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g ) w i t h two " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " a c t i v i t i e s found i n commercial textbooks. P a r t i c i p a n t s were audiotaped d u r i n g the f o u r i n t e r a c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s , and tapes were t r a n s c r i b e d and coded f o r f i v e measures of decision-making "moves". The b a s i s f o r comparison was frequency of the f i v e moves as w e l l 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 statement of hypotheses 1. H Q : There are no d i f f e r e n c e s between the f o u r t a s k s i n terms of s u b j e c t s ' performance as measured by frequency o f t o t a l decision-making moves. H i : There are d i f f e r e n c e s between the f o u r t a s k s i n terms of s u b j e c t s ' performance as measured by frequency o f t o t a l d e c i s i o n - making moves. 2. H Q : There are no d i f f e r e n c e s between the f o u r t a s k s i n terms of s u b j e c t s ' performance as measured by frequency of s p e c i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l decision-making moves. H i : There are d i f f e r e n c e s between the f o u r t a s k s i n terms of s u b j e c t s ' performance as measured by frequency of s p e c i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l decision-making moves. In a d d i t i o n t o the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e d t o t e s t the hypotheses, an i n depth d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s was c o n s i d e r e d necessary i n order t o address more s u b t l e concerns brought up i n o r i g i n a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s 4 and 5. 4. What do p a r t i c i p a n t s t a l k about d u r i n g each o f the f o u r t a s k s ? What are the 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. I s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e i n the k i n d of background knowledge 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 s u g g e s t i o n s and/or d e c i s i o n s ? 51 METHODOLOGY I n t r o d u c t i o n The primary o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o e x p l o r e the v a l u e of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n o f compositions as an o r a l , i n t e r a c t i v e decision-making a c t i v i t y f o r the ESL classroom. To make t h i s p o s s i b l e , a secondary but necessary o b j e c t i v e was t o develop a technique o f a n a l y s i s t h a t c o u l d be used t o study "decision-making language" over a range o f o r a l ESL classroom a c t i v i t i e s . A p i l o t study was conducted i n a classroom s e t t i n g s i m i l a r t o t h a t used i n the a c t u a l study. T h i s allowed the i n v e s t i g a t o r t o c o n f i r m the f e a s i b i l i t y o f the p l a n f o r data c o l l e c t i o n and a l s o p r o v i d e d some experience w i t h the pr o c e s s . D i s c u s s i o n w i t h classroom i n s t r u c t o r s i n v o l v e d confirmed the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s (to the p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l of the students) o f the t a s k s meant f o r use as "non- c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d " decision-making a c t i v i t i e s . The methodology i n t h i s study i n c l u d e d g a i n i n g access t o one Intermediate l e v e l ESL c l a s s ; s e l e c t i n g two groups o f f o u r students each, based on the classroom t e a c h e r ' s recommendation, t o serve as s u b j e c t s ; a u d i o - t a p i n g these groups o f f o u r d u r i n g two c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s n o rmally done i n t h i s c l a s s ; i n t r o d u c i n g two non- c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d o r a l i n t e r a c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s t o the c l a s s and then a u d i o t a p i n g the two s u b j e c t groups d u r i n g these 52 a c t i v i t i e s ; t r a n s c r i b i n g the audiotapes; and a n a l y s i n g the data p r o v i d e d by these t r a n s c r i p t i o n s . Set t ing The s e t t i n g f o r t h i s study was a classroom i n the " E n g l i s h Language S k i l l s " Department, E n g l i s h as a Second Language D i v i s i o n , of Vancouver Community C o l l e g e . The c l a s s e s i n t h i s department range i n p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l from lower beginner t o upper advanced, w i t h the o b j e c t i v e s i n c l u d i n g the development of the f o u r language s k i l l s . Students i n t h i s department must take o r a l and w r i t t e n examinations t o pass each l e v e l . C l a s s e s meet 12 hours per week. Many students i n t h i s department have the g o a l o f c o n t i n u i n g on i n t o c l a s s e s i n the " C o l l e g e P r e p a r a t o r y E n g l i s h " Department and e v e n t u a l l y t o e n t e r post-secondary l e v e l content courses. The l e v e l chosen f o r t h i s study was Upper Intermediate, because i t i s a t t h i s l e v e l t h a t i n s t r u c t o r s i n t h i s department begin t o i n c l u d e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d composition work i n t h e i r classroom. The p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s was chosen because the i n s t r u c t o r was u s i n g a s t r u c t u r e d approach t o 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 o f compositions, which would ( i t was hoped) make data a n a l y s i s more s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . In a d d i t i o n , t h i s i n s t r u c t o r h a b i t u a l l y audiotaped the students d u r i n g these a c t i v i t i e s , which would s o l v e any problem of students b e i n g uneasy about 53 b e i n g taped d u r i n g the data c o l l e c t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s P a r t i c i p a n t s were e i g h t members of an Upper Intermediate l e v e l ESL c l a s s a t Vancouver Community C o l l e g e . As p a r t o f t h e i r composition s t u d i e s , they had a l r e a d y been i n t r o d u c e d t o the concept o f 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 , and the groups they worked i n d u r i n g these a c t i v i t i e s were a l r e a d y formed and remained c o n s t a n t . I t was a concern o f the i n v e s t i g a t o r t h a t t h i s study remain as n a t u r a l i s t i c as p o s s i b l e , so these groups were not a l t e r e d f o r the study. The c h o i c e o f the two groups o f s u b j e c t s was made l a r g e l y on the i n s t r u c t o r ' s recommendation, which was based t o some extent on the l i k e l i h o o d o f the students a t t e n d i n g c l a s s on a l l f o u r days of data c o l l e c t i o n , t o ensure t h a t the groups would remain i n t a c t . The procedure f o r data c o l l e c t i o n , and a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f the purpose o f the study, were e x p l a i n e d t o the p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s , none of whom were r e l u c t a n t t o p a r t i c i p a t e . Information on the s t u d e n t s ' e d u c a t i o n a l background i n both t h e i r n a t i v e c o u n t r i e s and i n Canada p r i o r t o e n r o l l i n g i n t h i s c l a s s was c o l l e c t e d , i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e p o s s i b l e i n s i g h t s i n t o f i n d i n g s l a t e r i n the study. 54 The e i g h t p a r t i c i p a n t s were a l l immigrants t o Canada: two from E l Salvador, one from each of Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, I r a n and the P h i l i p p i n e s . Seven had completed secondary s c h o o l i n t h e i r n a t i v e c o u n t r i e s , two had completed grade nine, one had a semester of c o l l e g e , and one had a degree i n Nursing. Ages ranged from 19 t o 45. P r e v i o u s E n g l i s h Language study ranged from e l e v e n months i n Canada t o s i x years i n the n a t i v e country. A r r i v a l i n Canada ranged from t e n months t o e i g h t e e n years ago. T a b l e 1 shows the background i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each s u b j e c t . 55 Tabl e 1 Background of S u b j e c t s Gender Age Years i n Canada Country of O r i g i n Formal E d u c a t i o n Years E n g l i s h E d u c a t i o n s "A" 1 F 35 5 E l S a l - vador Gr. 12 1 2 F 22 3 E l S a l - vador Gr. 9 1 3 M 19 1 Hong Kong Gr. 12 7 4 F 31 7 V i e t Nam Gr. 9 4 "B" 5 M 20 1 Ir a n Gr. 12 2 6 M 20 1 Korea 1 term c o l l e g e 6 7 F 45 18 China Gr. 12 4 8 F 42 6 Taiwan Nursing Degree 6 From the experience of the i n v e s t i g a t o r as an i n s t r u c t o r , and from knowledge of the u s u a l make-up of i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l c l a s s e s i n t h i s department, t h i s range i s not unusual. I t was f e l t t h a t t h i s was a good v a r i e t y o f p a r t i c i p a n t s which would a l l o w the f i n d i n g s i n the study t o be a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r " g e n e r a l s k i l l s " ESL c l a s s e s a t a s i m i l a r l e v e l . I t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n gender, c u l t u r a l background, e d u c a t i o n and amount of time i n the new cou n t r y may 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 performance i n 56 a classroom t a s k . The repeated measures d e s i g n used i n t h i s study reduces the l i k e l i h o o d o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n t a s k s b e i n g confounded w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n d i v i d u a l s . While i t i s a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e may be an i n t e r a c t i o n between the above d i f f e r e n c e s and ta s k - t y p e , those p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s w i l l not be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s study. In o t h e r words, t h i s i s not t o say these d i f f e r e n c e s do not e x i s t , but simply t h a t they were not the focus o f the study. Variables Independent variable The independent v a r i a b l e i n t h i s study was t a s k type. Four d i f f e r e n t group decision-making a c t i v i t i e s were engaged i n by the p a r t i c i p a n t s . These w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n subsequent s e c t i o n s of t h i s chapter. Dependent variables The dependent v a r i a b l e i n t h i s study was the e f f e c t o f the t a s k type on e l i c i t i n g the o r a l language o f d e c i s i o n making, s p e c i f i c a l l y the f o l l o w i n g moves ( r e l a t e d t o the step s i n the decision-making process d i s c u s s e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e ) : e l i c i t response ( e v a l u a t i o n o r s u g g e s t i o n ) ; r a t e o r e v a l u a t e course o f a c t i o n ; generate a l t e r n a t i v e s ; i d e n t i f y purpose o f a c t i o n ; and j u s t i f y a c t i o n based on a standard o r r u l e . The e f f e c t o f t a s k type on the frequency of each move being made was measured by coding and c o l l a t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s d u r i n g the 57 a c t i v i t i e s . The s p e c i f i c moves examined w i l l be d e a l t w i t h i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n the D i s c u s s i o n . Experimental m a t e r i a l s The primary purpose o f t h i s study was t o compare the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f f o u r separate "decision-making" a c t i v i t i e s f o r e l i c i t i n g the language o f decision-making from ESL st u d e n t s . These f o u r a c t i v i t i e s can be c l a s s i f i e d i n two typ e s : Composition r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s : 1) r e v i s i n g one group member's composition (content) 2) e d i t i n g one group member's composition (mechanics) "Constructed d e c i s i o n " a c t i v i t i e s : 3) a f i c t i o n a l " p e r s o n a l " problem 4) a f i c t i o n a l "world i s s u e s " problem The two types o f t a s k s were chosen because o f t h e i r u n d e r l y i n g purposes. The primary purpose o f " 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 o generate d i s c u s s i o n and d e c i s i o n - making around a pre-determined problem. L e a r n i n g the cont e n t o r background knowledge used t o s o l v e the problem i s not n e c e s s a r i l y an o b j e c t i v e . For ESL purposes, the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n - t a s k has the s i n g l e o b j e c t i v e o f e l i c i t i n g t a l k . The composition t a s k s , on the o t h e r hand, are designed f o r the purpose of students h e l p i n g each o t h e r t o improve t h e i r compositions. The steps i n v o l v e d encourage 58 students t o use t h e i r knowledge o f w r i t i n g i n the d i s c u s s i o n . The o r a l i n t e r a c t i o n d u r i n g these t a s k s i s b u i l t i n , and i s , i n e f f e c t , a n a t u r a l by-product o f a t a s k designed f o r a c q u i r i n g and r e i n f o r c i n g knowledge about w r i t i n g . The composition t a s k can be compared t o a c o n t e n t - based t a s k i n f i r s t language academic s i t u a t i o n s . The primary g o a l i s content l e a r n i n g , both f o r the immediate s i t u a t i o n and f o r the g e n e r i c s i t u a t i o n . The r e s u l t , however, should i n c l u d e not o n l y composition improvement and l e a r n i n g about w r i t i n g and grammar, but a l s o o r a l d e c i s i o n - making about the composition i n p a r t i c u l a r and about grammar and w r i t i n g i n g e n e r a l . The content f o r the composition r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s was e n t i r e l y student-produced. D i s c u s s i o n r e v o l v e d around problems w i t h the student composition as p e r c e i v e d by the p a r t i c i p a n t s . The procedure f o l l o w e d i n these a c t i v i t i e s was co-designed by the classroom t e a c h e r and can be found i n Appendix B. The content f o r the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s came from textbooks. The "pers o n a l problem" was from an ESL textbook and was known t o be f r e q u e n t l y used by t e a c h e r s o f i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l ESL stu d e n t s . The "world i s s u e s " problem was from a secondary s c h o o l s o c i a l s t u d i e s t e x t , and was approved o f by t h i s classroom i n s t r u c t o r as an a c t i v i t y t h a t her students would be a b l e t o t a c k l e . The purpose of t h i s "non-ESL" a c t i v i t y was t o e x p l o r e the p o s s i b i l i t y o f u s i n g a decision-making a c t i v i t y t h a t would r e q u i r e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o reason based on l e a r n e d , 59 a c a d e m i c a l l y - r e l a t e d knowledge as opposed t o s t a t i n g o p i n i o n s r e l a t e d t o emotion or p e r s o n a l experience alone. The non-ESL a c t i v i t y was the most "context reduced" because the content was t o t a l l y u n r e l a t e d t o the s t u d e n t s ' l i v e s . The content o f the composition a c t i v i t i e s , on the o t h e r hand, was e n t i r e l y student produced, so t h e r e were always elements of f a m i l i a r i t y and p e r s o n a l i z e d content. Background r e a d i n g and procedures f o r the two c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s can be found i n Appendix B. Procedure Research Design The d e s i g n f o r t h i s study was repeated measures, i n which s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n f o u r d i f f e r e n t group i n t e r a c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s designed f o r classroom use. The responses o f each s u b j e c t i n each s i t u a t i o n were measured i n d i v i d u a l l y . The repeated measures d e s i g n has been c o n s i d e r e d t o have an advantage over other experimental designs because i t al l o w s the r e s e a r c h e r t o reduce o v e r a l l v a r i a b i l i t y by u s i n g a common s u b j e c t p o o l f o r a l l treatments (Howell, 1987) . Although i t i s p r e f e r a b l e , when u s i n g repeated measures de s i g n s , t o balance the order o f the experimental s i t u a t i o n s r a t h e r than have them presented i n the same sequence t o a l l s u b j e c t s i n order t o a v o i d confounding o f the problem (Wiersma, 1986) , t h i s was not p o s s i b l e i n t h i s study. Because t h i s was a n a t u r a l i s t i c study done i n a classroom 6 0 where the composition r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s had t o be done i n a s p e c i f i c o r d e r and a t a s p e c i f i c time d u r i n g the semester, and because the r e s e a r c h had t o be scheduled a t the convenience of the c l a s s , a c t i v i t i e s were p r e s e n t e d i n the same order t o a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . The o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n i s i n c l u d e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . As the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p r a c t i c e e f f e c t cannot be ignored, t h i s i s s u e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the A n a l y s i s s e c t i o n . Experimental task The students used i n t h i s study worked i n groups o f f o u r which had been i n e x i s t e n c e p r i o r t o the study. The two groups used i n the study were chosen by the classroom t e a c h e r based l a r g e l y on the l i k e l i h o o d of the p a r t i c u l a r s t udents t o be i n attendance f o r a l l f o u r a c t i v i t i e s , t h ereby hoping t o ensure t h a t the groups would remain i n t a c t throughout the study so t h a t each s u b j e c t ' s responses c o u l d be measured i n each s i t u a t i o n . The students had a l r e a d y worked on the r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g of one s e r i e s o f compositions, which had f a m i l i a r i z e d them wi t h the procedure and the types of composition problems they should be l o o k i n g f o r . They were used t o working i n t e r a c t i v e l y i n groups and a l s o t o b e i n g tape recorded d u r i n g the a c t i v i t y . They had a l s o p r e v i o u s l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n o t h e r o r a l i n t e r a c t i v e t a s k s not r e l a t e d t o w r i t i n g . Each a c t i v i t y was run on a d i f f e r e n t day. The r e s e a r c h e r t o l d the students she was working on a graduate 61 study r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and would be a u d i o t a p i n g the groups d u r i n g t h e i r r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s as w e l l as two o t h e r group a c t i v i t i e s t o be presented l a t e r i n o r d e r t o i n v e s t i g a t e the k i n d of d i s c u s s i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d . Tasks one and two were d i s c u s s i o n s about student compositions. The i d e a of t h i s composition was t o develop a n a r r a t i v e based on a p i c t u r e . Students chose a p i c t u r e p r o v i d e d by the t e a c h e r or one they found themselves. They used the p i c t u r e as the s t i m u l u s f o r a s t o r y t h a t would r e l a t e events b e f o r e , d u r i n g and a f t e r whatever was happening i n the p i c t u r e . The f i r s t a c t i v i t y was the r e v i s i o n o f one group member's composition. The purpose of t h i s a c t i v i t y i s t o focus on the message, not on grammar and/or mechanics. I t o c c u r s a f t e r d r a f t I has been shaped by the w r i t e r . In t h i s a c t i v i t y the group f o l l o w e d a focus sheet from O r a l and W r i t t e n Composing (L i n g & R o t h s c h i l d , 1988), co-authored by the classroom t e a c h e r (see Appendix B). The w r i t e r of the composition read her composition, s t o p p i n g a f t e r the t i t l e , i n t r o d u c t i o n , each paragraph, and c o n c l u s i o n . At each break, s p e c i f i c p o t e n t i a l problems were e x p l o r e d by the group. Members of the group were f r e e t o ask q u e s t i o n s t o the w r i t e r and were encouraged t o suggest ways of c l a r i f y i n g , adding and d e l e t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . They were a l s o r e q u i r e d t o d i s c u s s whether each p a r t was s u i t a b l e t o the whole composition. The second a c t i v i t y was group e d i t i n g of one group 62 member's composition. T h i s procedure focuses on grammatical and mechanical problems, and occurs only a f t e r r e v i s i o n , so the students are e d i t i n g d r a f t 2. Each group member had a photocopy o f the composition so they c o u l d read along w i t h the w r i t e r and f i n d any e r r o r s . The group f o l l o w e d the Peer E d i t i n g focus sheet from Oral and Written Composing (see Appendix B) and a " c l a s s e d i t i n g key" (Ling & R o t h s c h i l d , 1988) . The c l a s s e d i t i n g key i s a l i s t o f common e r r o r s w i t h examples, r u l e s and marking symbols. In t h i s a c t i v i t y , the w r i t e r reads her composition, sentence by sentence, a f t e r each o f which the others must i d e n t i f y any e r r o r s . Each group member w r i t e s the symbol of the e r r o r i n the margin c l o s e s t t o the e r r o r , but the group does not f i x the e r r o r s f o r the w r i t e r . Students are reminded t o t h i n k about the grammar p o i n t s they have worked on i n c l a s s . The t h i r d a c t i v i t y was from React Interact (Byrd and Clemente-Cabetas, 1980), a t e x t designed f o r a d u l t ESL c l a s s e s . In t h i s a c t i v i t y , a problem was pre s e n t e d : Sophie, a young, a t t r a c t i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l woman, has the o p t i o n s o f marrying one of t h r e e men, or remaining unmarried. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f each o p t i o n are l i s t e d , but i t i s up t o the students t o decide whether they are advantages o r disadvantages. The students must go through the l i s t o f p o i n t s f o r each o p t i o n and decide the bes t c h o i c e o f a c t i o n f o r Sophie. The groups f o l l o w e d the i n s t r u c t i o n s p r o v i d e d by the t e x t book (see Appendix B). The f i n a l a c t i v i t y came from a secondary s c h o o l s o c i a l 63 s t u d i e s t e x t e n t i t l e d Involvement (Greig, I t o , West,1972). T h i s t e x t c o n s i s t s o f readings on a v a r i e t y o f community and world r e l a t e d problems with accompanying a c t i v i t i e s designed t o get students i n v o l v e d i n the a c t u a l d e c i s i o n p rocesses f a c e d i n these s i t u a t i o n s . The problem chosen concerned the t r a n s p o r t o f o i l from one g e o g r a p h i c a l area t o another by e i t h e r a sea route or a p i p e l i n e . Students were p r o v i d e d w i t h a l i s t o f p o t e n t i a l advantages and disadvantages and they had t o decide which of these favoured the sea route and which favoured the p i p e l i n e , a f t e r which they had t o decide which o p t i o n was p r e f e r a b l e . T h i s t o p i c was c o n s i d e r e d q u i t e r e l e v a n t by both the r e s e a r c h e r and the classroom t e a c h e r because o f p u b l i c concern over the r e c e n t Exxon Va l d e s a c c i d e n t . Before students worked i n groups on t h i s t a s k, the i n v e s t i g a t o r conducted a s h o r t s e s s i o n r e a d i n g the accompanying map so t h a t students would be a b l e t o r e f e r t o the map d u r i n g t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n . Vocabulary from the t e x t s f o r Tasks 3 and 4 were not pre-taught because t h i s was c o n s i d e r e d a p o t e n t i a l source of d i s c u s s i o n f o r the groups. I t i s p o s s i b l e t o see from these d e s c r i p t i o n s t h a t a l l o f the a c t i v i t i e s p r e s e n t e d 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 t o v e r b a l l y o f f e r o p i n i o n s and suggestions, and j u s t i f y these w i t h some k i n d of knowledge. A major d i f f e r e n c e between the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s and the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s was t h a t i n 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 the problems and look f o r s o l u t i o n s based on l e a r n e d knowledge, while i n the 64 l a t t e r the problems and a l t e r n a t i v e s were p r o v i d e d and p a r t i c i p a n t s had t o c l a s s i f y and r a t e the a l t e r n a t i v e s i n ord e r t o d e c i d e on one s o l u t i o n . During each data g a t h e r i n g s e s s i o n , the s u b j e c t groups were audiotaped as they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h a t day's a c t i v i t y . For the r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t y , where students g e n e r a l l y keep t h e i r own tapes f o r home use i n r e v i s i n g t h e i r compositions, the r e s e a r c h e r had these tapes c o p i e d f o r use i n the study. For each o f the oth e r a c t i v i t i e s , the r e s e a r c h e r kept the o r i g i n a l t apes. Tapes were t r a n s c r i b e d by the r e s e a r c h e r . Names o f students were r e p l a c e d by numbers. I t was p o s s i b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s ' v o i c e s and accents so t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s ' responses c o u l d be re c o g n i z e d . Coding A coding system was d e v i s e d so t h a t responses c o u l d be c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o s p e c i f i c "moves". A search r e v e a l e d t h a t c o d i n g systems had a l r e a d y been designed f o r examining the f o l l o w i n g d e c i s i o n - r e l a t e d s i t u a t i o n s : t e a c h e r - l e d classroom d i s c o u r s e d u r i n g e x p l o r a t i o n of a d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n , (Smith e t a l , 1967) ; the language of the LI w r i t i n g group, (Gere and Stevens, 1985); decision-making d u r i n g composing ( i n d i v i d u a l p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s ) , (Cumming, 1987) ; and ste p s i n the decision-making p r o cess, (Ross, 1981). However, no one coding system e x i s t e d t h a t would cover a l l of the 65 a c t i v i t i e s used i n t h i s study. Because w r i t i n g group a c t i v i t i e s had not p r e v i o u s l y been compared t o o t h e r group a c t i v i t i e s i t was necessary t o c o n s t r u c t a new system based on f e a t u r e s t h a t a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g systems had i n common. Gere and Stevens (1985) found t h a t the most f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r i n g moves by p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a LI w r i t i n g group were judgements and suggestions, which were sometimes j u s t i f i e d by r e f e r r i n g t o knowledge about the t o p i c o r about g e n e r a l standards f o r essay w r i t i n g . Cumming (1987) found t h a t i n d i v i d u a l w r i t e r s would make e v a l u a t i v e statements about t h e i r own w r i t i n g and sometimes r e f e r t o r u l e s o r standards when g e n e r a t i n g p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s t o t h e i r p e r c e i v e d problems. Smith e t a l (1967) showed how a t e a c h e r can e l i c i t r a t i n g responses, suggestions, reasons and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s by a s k i n g s p e c i f i c l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s . In the absence of a teacher, then, these q u e s t i o n s c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y be asked by students. Ross (1981) o u t l i n e d s t e p s i n the decision-making process which i n c l u d e : i d e n t i f y i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s ; s e l e c t i n g c r i t e r i a ; a s s e s s i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s ; summarizing the i n f o r m a t i o n ; and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . F i n a l l y , Mohan (1985) proposes t h a t when stud e n t s are i n v o l v e d i n t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s and a c t i v i t i e s which are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r a t i o n a l c h o i c e , and " s i n c e r a t i o n a l c h o i c e s p r i n g s from a person's e v a l u a t i v e a t t i t u d e s and f e e l i n g s towards the a l t e r n a t i v e s , i t r e l a t e s t o the s e c t i o n o f n o t i o n a l grammar t h a t d e a l s w i t h the emotions and a t t i t u d e s o f the speaker" (p. 87) . In oth e r words people 66 w i l l make statements of approval o r d i s a p p r o v a l , v o l i t i o n , comparison and p r e f e r e n c e , and assessment which may i n c l u d e reasons and r e f e r e n c e s t o standards, a l l o f which r e q u i r e a v a r i e t y o f s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e s , p a r t s o f speech and vo c a b u l a r y . An i n i t i a l l ook a t the t r a n s c r i b e d data r e v e a l e d t h a t moves i d e n t i f i e d i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h c o u l d be i s o l a t e d throughout a l l f o u r t a s k s . These i n c l u d e d : e l i c i t i n g r a t i n g s 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 ; g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s ; g i v i n g reasons f o r a c t i o n ; and p r o v i d i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a r a t i n g o r su g g e s t i o n based on some r u l e s or standards. These f i v e moves, then, were used as cod i n g c a t e g o r i e s of "decision-making language" and the frequency of t h e i r occurrence i n each of the f o u r t a s k s was recorded. Moves were coded by both the r e s e a r c h e r and another e x p e r i e n c e d ESL i n s t r u c t o r , w i t h an i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of 95%. D e f i n i t i o n s , examples and coding conventions f o r the moves can be found i n Appendix C. 67 RESULTS I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s c hapter p r e s e n t s s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the coded data f o r the purpose of comparing Tasks 1 and 2, 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 o f student compositions, w i t h Tasks 3 and 4, two i n t e r a c t i v e " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " a c t i v i t i e s . The f i r s t comparison i s of o v e r a l l d e c i s i o n - making moves made by each s u b j e c t d u r i n g each t a s k , t o examine the p o s s i b i l i t y o f an o v e r a l l s u p e r i o r i t y o f one t a s k f o r e l i c i t i n g decision-making t a l k . Both the p a r a m e t r i c A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e and the non-parametric Friedman T e s t were used f o r t h i s comparison. Next, the comparisons were done f o r each of the f i v e i n d i v i d u a l moves. To review, the purpose of these t e s t s was t o e x p l o r e the g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n : Does the 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 the language of d e c i s i o n making as e f f e c t i v e l y as a t a s k designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r decision-making w i t h i n an ESL c l a s s ? T h i s q u e s t i o n was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n t o two hypotheses, and i t should be noted t h a t i n o r d e r t o answer "yes" t o the above r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n , i t was s u f f i c i e n t t o accept the n u l l hypotheses: 1) There are no d i f f e r e n c e s between the f o u r t a s k s i n terms of s u b j e c t s ' performance as measured by frequency of t o t a l d e c i s i o n-making moves; 2) There are no d i f f e r e n c e s between the f o u r t a s k s i n terms of s u b j e c t s ' performance as measured by frequency of 68 s p e c i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l decision-making moves. In o t h e r words, i d e a l l y , r e s u l t s would show t h a t Tasks 1 and 2 e l i c i t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number of d e c i s i o n - making moves than do Tasks 3 and 4, but f o r the purposes of t h i s study, i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t h a t Tasks 1 and 2 e l i c i t an equal number of decision-making moves as do Tasks 3 and 4. Although Task 1 and Task 2 c o u l d be viewed as two p a r t s of the same t a s k because they are two complementary p a r t s of the composing process, i n t h i s study they are viewed as sepa r a t e t a s k s . They take p l a c e on d i f f e r e n t days, have s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t procedures, and r e q u i r e somewhat d i f f e r e n t knowledge t o be used. T h i s chapter a l s o addresses the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a c o r r e l a t i o n between t a s k s and moves u s i n g a c h i square a n a l y s i s . F i n a l l y , another c h i square l o o k s a t i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s ' t o t a l moves f o r each task, a d d r e s s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y o f one or 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 the b u l k of the decision-making moves f o r any one t a s k . As mentioned e a r l i e r , w h i le t h e r e may be a r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a n t s ' i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and the l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e i r making p a r t i c u l a r moves, t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n i s not addressed i n t h i s study. Before a p p l y i n g any s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s t o the data, i t was necessary t o d e a l w i t h one obvious i n e q u a l i t y between the t a s k s - the l e n g t h of time s u b j e c t s needed t o complete each one. T r a n s c r i p t i o n s o f the two c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s were n o t i c e a b l y l o n g e r than those of the two 69 c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s . The time needed f o r r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g can never r e a l l y be estimated s i n c e the number of d e c i s i o n s t o be made w i l l v a r y from composition t o compos i t i o n and w i l l a l s o depend on the a b i l i t y o f the group t o i d e n t i f y a problem, whereas i n a c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t y , t he number of d e c i s i o n s t o be made has been p r e - s e t and the problems are f a i r l y obvious. In o r d e r t o judge the t a s k s as i f they were of equal l e n g t h , moves were coded f o r an equal number of t o t a l u t t e r a n c e s f o r each t a s k . A l l t r a n s c r i p t s c o n t a i n e d a t l e a s t 1 0 0 t o t a l u t t e r a n c e s ( i n c l u d i n g a l l u t t e r a n c e s , not o n l y decision-making moves); t h e r e f o r e o n l y the f i r s t 1 0 0 u t t e r a n c e s made d u r i n g each a c t i v i t y were c o n s i d e r e d when cou n t i n g f r e q u e n c i e s o f the f i v e decision-making moves. D e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s An o v e r a l l l o o k a t the data i s presented i n Tab l e 2. T h i s shows the frequency o f each type o f move made by each s u b j e c t d u r i n g each t a s k . The data i n d i c a t e no immediately obvious p a t t e r n s . Each s u b j e c t appears t o var y i n the number of responses made f o r each categ o r y d u r i n g each ta s k . S l i g h t t e n d e n c i e s might be noted, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t s i x of the e i g h t s u b j e c t s made t h e i r h i g h e s t number of "R" moves d u r i n g t a s k 3 and f i v e o f the e i g h t students made t h e i r h i g h e s t number of "GA" moves d u r i n g t a s k 2. 70 Table 2 Frequency ( i n 100 u t t e r a n c e s ) of I n d i v i d u a l Decision-Making 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 Each Task P a r t i c i p a n t s Move Task SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 T o t a l ER T l 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 7 13 T2 0 1 5 4 4 2 1 1 18 T3 5 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 11 T4 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 0 12 R T l 1 0 3 4 4 4 2 2 20 T2 2 3 2 2 2 7 5 1 24 T3 10 6 6 6 2 6 4 3 43 T4 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 GA T l 4 6 6 6 3 5 1 3 34 T2 6 7 7 0 2 9 8 7 46 T3 1 3 3 1 0 6 2 1 17 T4 4 2 3 4 4 0 0 0 17 IP T l 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 8 21 T2 1 0 6 1 1 1 1 1 12 T3 1 0 0 3 0 3 1 1 9 T4 3 2 2 0 4 2 0 0 13 J T l 2 10 6 4 1 7 2 4 36 T2 5 3 10 1 3 7 4 1 34 T3 5 3 6 1 1 8 3 1 28 T4 5 5 6 2 4 2 2 0 26 ER = E l i c i t response R = Rate GA = Generate a l t e r n a t i v e IP = I d e n t i f y purpose J = J u s t i f y 71 In o r d e r t o address the c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n o f whether t h e r e would be any v a r i a t i o n i n s u b j e c t s ' performance a c r o s s t a s k s , i t was f i r s t o f i n t e r e s t t o examine the e f f e c t o f t a s k on s u b j e c t s ' t o t a l decision-making moves acr o s s t a s k s , as shown i n Table 3. Table 3 T o t a l Decision-Making Moves, By Task, For Each Subject Subject Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 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 T h i s a n a l y s i s would i n d i c a t e any o v e r a l l s u p e r i o r i t y o f a t a s k i n terms of e l i c i t i n g the language o f decision-making. The q u e s t i o n was e x p l o r e d u s i n g both p a r a m e t r i c and nonparametric s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s . Although t h e r e i s some disagreement as t o whether a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i s a v a l i d s t a t i s t i c a l method f o r the type of data being examined i n t h i s study, t h e r e i s at l e a s t one precedent i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Doughty and P i c a (1986) used a two way a n a l y s i s 72 o f v a r i a n c e t o measure the e f f e c t o f t a s k on pro d u c i n g v a r i o u s d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s . However, because t h e r e may be some u n c e r t a i n t y , the data i n the p r e s e n t study was a l s o a n a l y s e d u s i n g the Friedman T e s t . T o t a l d e c i s i o n making moves f o r each s u b j e c t were used as the dependent 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 u s i n g the program SYSTAT. T h i s t e s t y i e l d e d a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t 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 making moves (F(3,21)=2.197, n . s . ) . R e s u l t s are shown i n Tabl e 4. Table 4 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r E f f e c t o f Task on T o t a l D e c i s i o n Making Moves SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES D.F. MEAN SQUARE F F PROB. Hypothesis E r r o r 268.094 854.156 3 21 89.365 40.674 2.197 0.118 An a p p r o p r i a t e nonparametric t e s t i n s i t u a t i o n s where s u b j e c t s are t e s t e d under a number of d i f f e r e n t experimental c o n d i t i o n s i s the Friedman two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e by ranks (Ferguson, 1971). Using the program BMDP3S Nonparametric S t a t i s t i c s , t h i s t e s t was c a r r i e d out on the t o t a l decision-making moves f o r each s u b j e c t . T h i s t e s t a l s o y i e l d e d a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f t a s k on t o t a l d e c i s i on-making moves (Friedman T e s t S t a t i s t i c (F r)=5.250, n.s.) . 73 To determine i f t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of t a s k type on frequency of response w i t h any s p e c i f i c move, both a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and the Friedman t e s t were run f o r each of the f i v e moves shown i n the f i v e i n d i v i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s o f T a b l e 2. Frequency of response f o r each s u b j e c t was a g a i n the dependent v a r i a b l e w i t h the t a s k s as repeated measures. The e f f e c t of t a s k on s u b j e c t s ' responses w i t h each o f the f i v e i s o l a t e d d e c i s i o n making moves was f i r s t examined u s i n g a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . A s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of t a s k was found f o r the move "Rate" u s i n g a u n i v a r i a t e repeated measures F t e s t (F(3,21)=9.410, p<.001). R e s u l t s are shown i n T a b l e 5. Table 5 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e T a b l e f o r E f f e c t of Task on E l i c i t i n g the move "Rate" SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES D.F. MEAN SQUARE F F PROB. Hypothesis E r r o r 91.750 68.250 3 21 30.583 3.250 9.410 0.000 F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s by p a i r w i s e comparisons ( S c h e f f e method of p o s t hoc comparisons) r e v e a l e d a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between Task 3 and Task 4 (F(3,7)=33.693, p<.001). A l l o t h e r c o n t r a s t s were non- s i g n i f i c a n t , although the d i f f e r e n c e between Task 1 and Task 4 approached s i g n i f i c a n c e (F(3,7)=10.430, p=.014), i n favour o f Task 1. 74 In a d d i t i o n t o comparing a l l p o s s i b l e combinations o f s i n g l e t a s k s , Tasks 1 and 2 were c o l l a p s e d and compared t o Tasks 3 and 4 c o l l a p s e d . T h i s r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between Task 1/2 and Task 3/4 i n e l i c i t i n g the move "Rate" (F(l,7)=0.111, n . s . ) . U s i n g the Friedman T e s t , a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f t a s k on frequency o f a p a r t i c u l a r move be i n g produced was a l s o found f o r the move "Rate" ( F r = 14.18, df=3: p<.01). The rank sums f o r t h i s move were as f o l l o w s : V a r i a b l e Rank Sum Task 1 19.500 Task 2 22.000 Task 3 28.500 Task 4 10.000 T h i s shows t h a t the frequency of "Rate" o c c u r r i n g i n each t a s k ranks, from h i g h e s t t o lowest, i n the order o f Task 3, Task 2, Task 1, Task 4. In order t o determine where the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d between any two t a s k s f o r the move "Rate", m u l t i p l e comparisons were done, r e v e a l i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between Task 3 and Task 4 (Zstat=3.68, p<.05), i n favour o f Task 3. A l l o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e a l s o r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of t a s k on the move "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e s " u s i n g a u n i v a r i a t e repeated measures F - t e s t (F(3,21)=4.852, p<.01). R e s u l t s are shown i n Table 6. 75 Tab l e 6 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e Table f o r E f f e c t o f Task on E l i c i t i n g the move "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " SOURCE SUM OF D.F. MEAN F F SQUARES SQUARE PROB. Hypothesis 75.125 3 25.042 4.852 0.010 E r r o r 108.375 21 5.161 P a i r w i s e comparisons showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between Task 2 and Task 3 (F(3,7)=19.429, p<.05). P o s s i b l e t r e n d s were a l s o i n d i c a t e d between Task 1 and Task 3 (F=8.190) and between Task 1 and Task 4 (F=8.758). In both cases the t r e n d would be i n favour of Task 1. As was done f o r the move "Rate", .collapsed Task 1/2 was compared t o c o l l a p s e d Task 3/4. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the comparison r e v e a l e d a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f a v o u r i n g Task 1/2 (F(l,7)=26.640, p<.001). T h i s r e s u l t i s e s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of the q u a l i t a t i v e e x p l o r a t i o n o f the t a s k s which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a pter. U s i n g the Friedman T e s t t o measure the move "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " a c r o s s the f o u r t a s k s , the r e s u l t was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F r=7.54, p=.0566) but i s worth n o t i n g as i n d i c a t i v e o f a p o s s i b l e t r e n d . Because the r e s u l t s approached s i g n i f i c a n c e , m u l t i p l e comparisons were a l s o done. T h i s r e v e a l e d a d i f f e r e n c e t h a t approaches the c r i t i c a l Z v a l u e (2.39 a t p=.l) between Task 2 and Task 4 76 (Zstat=2.32) i n favour o f Task 2. E f f e c t o f t a s k on e l i c i t i n g a l l o t h e r moves was non- s i g n i f i c a n t . U s i n g a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , f o r the move " E l i c i t Response", the r e s u l t was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F(3,21) =.265, n . s . ) ; f o r the move " I d e n t i f y Purpose" the r e s u l t was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F(3,21)=.868, n . s . ) ; and f o r the move " J u s t i f y " the r e s u l t was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F(3,21)=.665, n . s . ) . U s i n g the Friedman T e s t , f o r the move " E l i c i t Response", the r e s u l t was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F r=1.538, n . s . ) . For the move, " I d e n t i f y Purpose", the r e s u l t was a l s o n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F r=1.837), and f o r the move " J u s t i f y " , t he r e s u l t was again n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F r=.563, n . s . ) . To summarize so f a r , the f i r s t f i n d i n g i s t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f t a s k on o v e r a l l use of decision-making moves. Thus, the f i r s t n u l l h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d : t h e r e are no d i f f e r e n c e s between t a s k s i n terms o f s u b j e c t s ' o v e r a l l performance, i s accepted. I t should be kept i n mind t h a t "no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e " was the expected r e s u l t . To examine the e f f e c t of t a s k on i n d i v i d u a l moves, Hypothesis 2 was developed. The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e d : There are no d i f f e r e n c e s between the f o u r t a s k s i n terms o f s u b j e c t s ' performance. For the move "Rate", the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s r e j e c t e d i n f a v o r o f the r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s i s , which s t a t e d : There are d i f f e r e n c e s between the f o u r t a s k s i n terms of s u b j e c t s ' performance. More i n depth 77 i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t a d e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e i n performance l a y between Tasks 3 and 4 and a p o s s i b l e t r e n d was i n d i c a t e d between Tasks 1 and 4. Thus, i n no case was a 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 g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e than a c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k i n e l i c i t i n g the move "Rate". For the move "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s accepted but i t i s worth n o t i n g t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s between some t a s k s approach s i g n i f i c a n c e . A c c o r d i n g t o the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between Task 2 and Task 3, i n favour of Task 2. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e approached s i g n i f i c a n c e a c c o r d i n g t o the Friedman T e s t . P o s s i b l e t r e n d s were i n d i c a t e d by the ANOVA between Task 1 and Task 3 and between Task 1 and Task 4. Again, i n no case d i d a c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k show s u p e r i o r i t y over a c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s . In a d d i t i o n , a comparison between the combined c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s (Task 1/2) and the combined c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s (Task 3/4) r e v e a l e d t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number of "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " moves were made d u r i n g the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s . P o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the e f f e c t s mentioned w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter. F i n a l l y , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s accepted f o r the remaining t h r e e moves: E l i c i t Response, I d e n t i f y Purpose, and J u s t i f y . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d by the Friedman T e s t and ANOVA r e p r e s e n t the major f i n d i n g s f o r t h i s study, which address 78 the c e n t r a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n . However, t h e r e are o t h e r q u e s t i o n s o f i n t e r e s t which can be addressed by e x p l o r i n g the data from o t h e r angles. While the p r e v i o u s s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s addressed the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u b j e c t s and t a s k s , i t i s a l s o of i n t e r e s t t o address the r e l a t i o n s h i p between moves and t a s k s . In other words, are c e r t a i n t a s k s more e f f e c t i v e f o r e l i c i t i n g c e r t a i n types of moves? T h i s q u e s t i o n was addressed by a p p l y i n g a c h i s q u a r e t o the sums o f the f r e q u e n c i e s of the moves produced d u r i n g each t a s k . Table 7 shows the observed and expected counts f o r each move. The value of c h i square w i t h 12 degrees of freedom i s 41.10, which i s s i g n i f i c a n t at p < .001. Table 7 Chisquare Table: Frequencies of Moves by Task (Expected counts p r i n t e d below observed counts) Move Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 T o t a l 1 13 18 11 12 54 (ER) 15.3 16.1 13.4 9.2 2 20 24 43 6 93 (R) 26.4 27 . 6 23.1 15.9 3 33 41 17 17 108 (GA) 30.6 32.1 26.9 18.4 4 21 12 9 13 55 (IP) 15. 6 16.3 13.7 9.4 5 36 34 28 26 124 (J) 35.1 36.9 30.9 21.1 Chi Square = 41.2, df=12, p < .001 79 T h i s t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n s e v e r a l c e l l s the observed number of times a move was made was g r e a t e r than the expected frequency. The d i f f e r e n c e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g f o r move 2, " r a t e " , i n t a s k 3, as was i n d i c a t e d by the o t h e r t e s t s . Furthermore, the c o n t r i b u t i o n from t h i s c e l l t o the t o t a l c h i square o f 41.10 was 17.04, the l a r g e s t c o n t r i b u t i o n from any c e l l . In a l l o t h e r t a s k s the observed frequency o f the move " r a t e " was s m a l l e r than the expected frequency. T h i s would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between t a s k 3 and the move " r a t e " . In c o n t r a s t , the observed frequency o f " r a t e " d u r i n g Task 4 was f a r below the expected frequency, and the c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the t o t a l c h i square was second l a r g e s t (6.13). The c o n t r a s t between these two t a s k s r e f l e c t s r e s u l t s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , but most i m p o r t a n t l y , i t f u r t h e r emphasizes the need t o examine the nature of the t a s k t o determine why one would be so e f f e c t i v e and another so i n e f f e c t i v e f o r e l i c i t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r move. The next l a r g e s t p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n i s found between t a s k 2 and move 3, "generate a l t e r n a t i v e s " . The observed frequency i s 41 w h i l e the expected frequency i s 32.4. The c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h i s c e l l t o the t o t a l c h i square i s 2.47, which i s one of the l a r g e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s . T h i s can be c o n t r a s t e d w i t h the n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between t a s k 3 and the same move. Again, the i n d i v i d u a l t a s k s need t o be examined q u a l i t a t i v e l y i n o r d e r t o e x p l o r e t h i s c o n t r a s t . 80 The c h i square a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e may be some a s s o c i a t i o n between Task 1 and move 4, " i d e n t i f y purpose" and between Task 4 and move 5, " j u s t i f y " . A very s l i g h t a s s o c i a t i o n can be noted between both Tasks 2 and 4 and move 1, " e l i c i t response". In other words, each t a s k seems t o have some r e l a t i o n t o one of the moves, but no one t a s k i s more e f f e c t i v e f o r e l i c i t i n g a l l of the moves. The Chi Square a n a l y s i s t h a t was j u s t examined d e a l t w i t h the t o t a l s f o r each move made by a l l s u b j e c t s d u r i n g each t a s k . T h i s cannot account f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance by i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s . I t was o f i n t e r e s t t o e x p l o r e the extent of each s u b j e c t s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the t o t a l s , because of the p o s s i b i l i t y o f one person b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the m a j o r i t y o f the moves. I t was a l s o o f i n t e r e s t t o examine whether any one t a s k would show an i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n by most students over another t a s k . Another Chi Square was a p p l i e d t o the t o t a l decision-making moves made by each s u b j e c t d u r i n g each t a s k . In ot h e r words, moves were not separated i n t o the f i v e c a t e g o r i e s . The observed and expected counts are shown i n Table 8. 81 Tab l e 8 Chisquare T a b l e : T o t a l Moves by I n d i v i d u a l s f o r Each Task (Expected counts p r i n t e d below observed counts) Subj e c t Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 T o t a l 1 9 14 22 14 59 16.7 17.5 14.7 10.1 2 19 14 15 11 59 16.7 17.5 14.7 10.1 3 16 25 15 14 70 19.8 20.8 17.4 11.9 4 18 8 11 8 45 12.8 13.4 11.2 7.7 5 10 12 3 16 41 11. 6 12.2 10.2 7.0 6 21 26 24 7 78 22.1 23.2 19.4 13.3 7 6 19 12 4 41 11.6 12.2 10.2 7.0 8 24 11 6 0 41 11.6 12.2 10.2 7.0 T o t a l 123 129 108 74 434 Ch i Square = 66.75, df = 21, p < .001 R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t somewhere t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s and t a s k s . The most s t r i k i n g p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n i s between Task 1 and s u b j e c t #8. The c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h i s c e l l t o the t o t a l c h i square o f 68.75 was the h i g h e s t from any c e l l , a t 13.19. I f we 82 r e f e r back t o Tab l e 2, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h i s s u b j e c t made more " e l i c i t response" and " i d e n t i f y purpose" moves than any o t h e r s u b j e c t made i n Task 1. Task 1 a l s o seems t o have a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h S u b j e c t #4, but Tab l e 2 shows t h a t t h i s person made no " e l i c i t response" moves and s l i g h t l y more "generate a l t e r n a t i v e " moves than d i d o t h e r s u b j e c t s d u r i n g Task 1. T h i s person a l s o made more " i d e n t i f y purpose" moves than the others the t h a t a c t i v i t y group ( s u b j e c t s 1,2,3 & 4 ) . Another s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t seems t o occur between Task 4 and Subject # 5 . T a b l e 3 shows t h a t t h i s person seems t o have dominated the d i s c u s s i o n (at l e a s t i n terms of decision-making moves) d u r i n g t h i s t a s k i n comparison t o the oth e r s u b j e c t s i n the group of f o u r ( S u b j e c t s 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ) . There a l s o appears t o be an a s s o c i a t i o n between Task 2 and Subject # 7 , w i t h the m a j o r i t y of t h i s person's moves i n the ca t e g o r y "generate a l t e r n a t i v e " , although many oth e r s u b j e c t s made a comparable number of t h i s type of move. F i n a l l y , a l a r g e p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n i s seen between Task 3 and Su b j e c t #1. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t t h i s person made 10 o f the 43 " r a t e " moves i n Task 3, so t h a t w h i l e Task 3 showed a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the move " r a t e " , we f i n d t h a t n e a r l y one q u a r t e r of the c o n t r i b u t i o n s came from one person. In f a c t , t h i s person made more " r a t e " moves than anyone e l s e d u r i n g any one task . On the oth e r hand, i f the t o t a l number of " r a t e " moves a c r o s s t a s k s are t o t a l l e d f o r 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 d i d not make more 83 t o t a l " r a t e " moves than most ot h e r s u b j e c t s . There are a number o f s m a l l e r a s s o c i a t i o n s which do not need t o be mentioned. The i n d i c a t i o n made by t h i s a n a l y s i s i s t h a t f o r each ta s k , d i f f e r e n t people seem t o be the major c o n t r i b u t o r s . I t i s a l s o apparent from the t a b l e t h a t no student s y s t e m a t i c a l l y produced more or l e s s than the expected number of d e c i s i o n making moves a c r o s s a l l f o u r t a s k s . No one t a s k appears t o b r i n g about an i n c r e a s e or decrease i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n by a l l or even most s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n , no one move appears t o dominate the c o n t r i b u t i o n s a c r o s s a l l the t a s k s . Summary Q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of the data i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the e f f e c t of t a s k on e l i c i t i n g o v e r a l l decision-making language. Based on a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t F, the f i r s t n u l l h y p o t h e s i s : t h e r e w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n s u b j e c t s ' o v e r a l l performance a c r o s s t a s k s , must be accepted. As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was expected. The second n u l l h y p o t h e s i s : f o r any g i v e n move, t h e r e w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e i n s u b j e c t s ' performance a c r o s s t a s k s , must a l s o be accepted f o r the moves " E l i c i t Response", " I d e n t i f y Purpose", and " J u s t i f y " . On the b a s i s of a s i g n i f i c a n t F, however, the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s r e j e c t e d f o r the move "Rate". Furthermore, Task 3 had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y 84 g r e a t e r e f f e c t than Task 4 on e l i c i t i n g t h i s move, and t h e r e was a t r e n d towards a g r e a t e r e f f e c t f o r Task 1 than f o r Task 4. For the move "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " , a s l i g h t l y s i g n i f i c a n t F and a l s o a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t from the Friedman T e s t i n d i c a t e t h a t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s should a g a i n be accepted. However, the S c h e f f e method i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r e f f e c t on e l i c i t i n g t h i s move f o r Task 2 than f o r Task 3, and a t r e n d toward a g r e a t e r e f f e c t f o r Task 1 over Task 4, and f o r Task 1 over Task 3. To conclude, i n no case were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more decision-making moves generated d u r i n g a c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k than d u r i n g a c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d task, and i n s e v e r a l cases t h e r e was a t r e n d towards decision-making moves be i n g more freq u e n t d u r i n g c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s . A n a l y s i s o f a ch i s q u a r e i n d i c a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n t a s k s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n may be more a s s o c i a t e d than o t h e r s w i t h the l i k e l i h o o d o f a p a r t i c u l a r move be i n g e l i c i t e d . I t seems t h a t Task 3 has a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the move "Rate" w h i l e Task 4 has a neg a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h a t move. S i m i l a r l y , Task 2 a p p a r e n t l y has a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the move "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " w h i l e Task 3 has a n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h a t move. Task 1 may a l s o have a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the move " I d e n t i f y Purpose". A second c h i s q u a r e e x p l o r e d the q u e s t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n by students. I t i s apparent t h a t s u b j e c t s 7 p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i e d a c r o s s t a s k s , but t h a t no one student 85 dominated the d i s c u s s i o n throughout a l l the t a s k s . R e f e r r i n g back t o the o r i g i n a l data, no one student c o n s i s t e n t l y made more of one k i n d o f move than another. A l l r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n t h i s chapter, and t h e i r p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r . 86 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS Discussion The d i s c u s s i o n addresses the r e s e a r c h problem from two a n g l e s . F i r s t , the q u a n t i t a t i v e f i n d i n g s are reviewed and second, a q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i s a p p l i e d t o the d i s c o u r s e t o e x p l o r e more s u b t l e d i f f e r e n c e s . The primary concern of the 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 the f r e q u e n c i e s w i t h which f i v e d i f f e r e n t decision-making moves were generated d u r i n g f o u r d i f f e r e n t t a s k s . The concern of the q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i s t o d e s c r i b e the a c t u a l d i s c o u r s e i n terms of both language and content v a l u e . One reason f o r l o o k i n g a t a c t u a l raw data i s t o demonstrate how the c o d i n g of moves was a r r i v e d a t . The primary purpose however, i s t o e x p l o r e the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t even when two moves are c l a s s i f i e d under the same heading, t h e r e may be d i s t i n c t q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between them i n terms of the k i n d s o f knowledge they r e p r e s e n t . Quantitative analysis R e s u l t s of t h i s study showed t h a t two c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s were at l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e as two 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 n e l i c i t i n g the language of decision-making, as measured, by f i v e "moves": " 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"; and " J u s t i f y " . When p a i r s of t a s k s were compared, t h e r e was a t r e n d f a v o u r a b l e t o one of the decision-making t a s k s f o r e l i c i t i n g 87 the moves "Rate" and "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " . Moreover, the combined c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s e l i c i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " moves than the combined c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s . The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s i n t h i s study d e a l t w i t h the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the f o u r t a s k s i n e l i c i t i n g o v e r a l l d ecision-making t a l k . R e s u l t s showed no d i f f e r e n c e i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s between the f o u r t a s k s . T h i s supports the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t s i n c e r e v i s i o n of w r i t t e n compositions i s e s s e n t i a l l y decision-making, and a t a s k t h a t r e q u i r e s d e c i s i on-making can be s t r u c t u r e d t o e l i c i t the s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s of language a s s o c i a t e d w i t h decision-making (Mohan, 1986), t h a t r e v i s i o n can serve as the c o n t e x t f o r e l i c i t i n g t h a t language. Mohan i d e n t i f i e s the two key knowledge s t r u c t u r e s r e l a t e d t o decision-making as " e v a l u a t i o n " and " c h o i c e " . B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1987) have shown t h a t r e v i s i n g i n v o l v e s the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s of " e v a l u a t i o n " and " t a c t i c a l d e c i s i o n s " . Gere and Stevens (1985) found t h a t the most frequent comments made by LI s tudents i n v o l v e d i n 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 and the next most fr e q u e n t were d i r e c t i v e , "commonly suggestions t o the w r i t e r about changes..." (p.92), i n o t h e r words, l o o k i n g a t a c h o i c e o f a l t e r n a t i v e s . Assuming t h a t a " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " ESL task, designed so t h a t s tudents work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y towards a d e c i s i o n , i s more e f f e c t i v e i n e l i c i t i n g the language of e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e than a t a s k not designed f o r t h i s purpose, then c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n 88 and e d i t i n g s hould be e f f e c t i v e as w e l l . The term " e f f e c t i v e " as used here r e f e r s o n l y t o the frequency w i t h which decision-making language i s e l i c i t e d . The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the composition t a s k s may be more e f f e c t i v e i n a deeper sense w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r on. The second h y p o t h e s i s concerned the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the f o u r t a s k s i n e l i c i t i n g f i v e i n d i v i d u a l decision-making moves. For a l l of these moves, i t appears t h a t the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s are a t l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e as the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s . For the move "Rate" t h e r e was a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between Tasks 3 and 4. S i n c e the d i f f e r e n c e s between these two t a s k s are not o f concern i n t h i s study, they w i l l not be d i s c u s s e d . The d i f f e r e n c e i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note both f o r the classroom and f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s however, because i t underscores the important r o l e t h a t t a s k d e s i g n p l a y s i n g e n e r a t i n g s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s of language. Of i n t e r e s t here i s t h a t the frequency o f the move " r a t e " was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r d u r i n g Task 3 than d u r i n g Task 1 or 2, and t h a t the combined Task 1/2 was a t l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e as the combined Tasks 3/4 i n e l i c i t i n g t he move "Rate". The d e s i g n of Task 3 can account f o r the h i g h frequency of e v a l u a t i v e comments, because the i n s t r u c t i o n s read s p e c i f i c a l l y , "What are the advantages and disadvantages of each o p t i o n ? " , and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f each o p t i o n are v e r y c l e a r l y l a i d out. In f a c t , t h e r e i s the p o t e n t i a l t o make a t l e a s t one e v a l u a t i v e comment on each of 89 31 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In the r e v i s i o n t a s k the students a re i n s t r u c t e d t o judge whether the t i t l e i s "OK" or whether the i n t r o d u c t i o n , body and c o n c l u s i o n are " s u i t a b l e " , but they are r e s p o n s i b l e 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 o f those p a r t s o f the composition t h a t m e r i t an e v a l u a t i v e comment. Li k e w i s e i n the e d i t i n g t a s k , students must f i n d t he e r r o r s t h a t they w i l l l a b e l " i n c o r r e c t " . C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t i n the two c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s the students were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the s i t u a t i o n s where r a t i n g s c o u l d be made, i t seems admirable t h a t the move " r a t e " was not made s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s o f t e n than d u r i n g Task 3. L a t e r on, a lo o k a t the a c t u a l c o n t e x t s i n which t h i s move was made w i l l p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t i n t o the v a l u e o f the composition t a s k s . "Generate A l t e r n a t i v e " was the oth e r move where some s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o r a t l e a s t some d i f f e r e n c e approaching s i g n i f i c a n c e was found. The p a r a m e t r i c t e s t showed a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (F(l,7)=19.429, p<.01) between Task 2 and Task 3; however the nonparametric t e s t showed t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e o n l y approached s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05 l e v e l . That t h e r e may even p o s s i b l y be a d i f f e r e n c e i n favour o f Task 2 i s worth d i s c u s s i n g . F i r s t o f a l l , as mentioned b e f o r e , the d e s i g n o f Task 3 i s such t h a t f o u r o p t i o n s , w i t h 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. The t a s k i s s t r u c t u r e d so t h a t students must a t l e a s t r e f e r t o a l t e r n a t i v e s p r o v i d e d i n the t e x t , which f o r t h i s t a s k was e q u i v a l e n t t o g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h e r e f o r e , the 90 d e s i g n o f Task 3 assures t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . There i s a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r s tudents t o suggest other, o r i g i n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s but, as w i l l be shown f u r t h e r on, t h i s was r a r e . In the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s , again, students must not o n l y i d e n t i f y when an a l t e r n a t i v e i s necessary, they must generate t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e from t h e i r own knowledge. The importance o f g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s autonomously has been s t r e s s e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e on decision-making, on composition, and on second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Ross (1981) i d e n t i f i e s the f i r s t s k i l l r e q u i r e d i n decision-making as " i d e n t i f y i n g a s e t of a l t e r n a t i v e courses of a c t i o n " . He f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t t h i s s k i l l can be employed on f i v e l e v e l s of m a t u r i t y : 1 ) s i n g l e a l t e r n a t i v e i d e n t i f i e d ; 2 ) s m a l l l i s t o f a l t e r n a t i v e s ; 3 ) b r a i n s t o r m i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s ; 4 ) c o n s t r u c t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s by c l a s s i f y i n g ; and 5 ) c o n s t r u c t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s u s i n g c r i t e r i a . Task 3 p r o v i d e s a s m a l l l i s t o f a l t e r n a t i v e s , and as w i l l be shown l a t e r , the s tudents d i d not go beyond these but expressed o p i n i o n s about the i n f o r m a t i o n they were g i v e n . In Task 2, a l t e r n a t i v e s were generated spontaneously and, as w i l l be seen l a t e r , seemed t o b u i l d upon each other through b r a i n s t o r m i n g . Thus, Task 2 seems t o encourage i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s a t l e a s t a t Ross 7 l e v e l 3 of m a t u r i t y and a t the same time e l i c i t e d an e q u i v a l e n t i f not g r e a t e r number of s u g g e s t i o n s from the p a r t i c i p a n t s than were e l i c i t e d by Task 3. Other i n d i c a t i o n s of the need f o r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o 91 generate a l t e r n a t i v e s comes from composition r e s e a r c h . Cumming 1s (1987) comparison of b a s i c and p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s employed h e u r i s t i c s e arch s t r a t e g i e s f o r r e s o l v i n g problems i n composition. T h i s search i n v o l v e d " g e n e r a t i n g and a s s e s s i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s " which r e q u i r e d a c c e s s i n g background knowledge and knowing how t o apply i t . B a s i c w r i t e r s , on the oth e r hand r a r e l y t r i e d t o search f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s and l e f t problems which r e q u i r e d a search unsolved. I t has been p o i n t e d out e x t e n s i v e l y i n the l i t e r a t u r e on composition t h a t d e v e l o p i n g s k i l l i n composition means dev e l o p i n g an awareness of one's knowledge and understanding how t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e i t . H i l l o c k s (1986) c i t e s s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the use o f l e a r n e d c r i t e r i a helps generate suggestions, r e v i s i o n s and new m a t e r i a l . B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia's (1987) dual-problem space model s t r e s s e s the need f o r a w r i t e r t o know how t o t r a n s f e r knowledge from the r h e t o r i c a l space t o the content space, t h a t i s , t o be ab l e t o access content knowledge when f a c e d with a r h e t o r i c a l problem, and form o p i n i o n s based on t h a t knowledge. A t a s k designed t o encourage a two way flow o f i n f o r m a t i o n between the two problem spaces was e s p e c i a l l y e f f e c t i v e i n s t i m u l a t i n g "attempts t o r e s o l v e opposing p o i n t s i n s t e a d o f simply n o t i n g pros and cons" (p.308). In l i g h t o f the presen t study, perhaps problem s o l v i n g t a s k s t h a t s t i m u l a t e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o access background knowledge s t i m u l a t e not only more attempts but more c r e a t i v e attempts at r e s o l v i n g 92 the problem. F i n a l l y , the major focus o f t h i s study i s on the v a l u e o f the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s i n r e l a t i o n t o second language a c q u i s i t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s most important t o f i n d support from SLA r e s e a r c h f o r t a s k s which g i v e students the o p p o r t u n i t y t o generate o r i g i n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s when f a c e d w i t h a d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n . B r i c e - H e a t h (1989) found t h a t w h ile r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s which r e q u i r e c o l l a b o r a t i v e d e cision-making always r e q u i r e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o generate p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s , t h e r e i s a marked absence o f the o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s step o f the d e c i s i o n - making process i n the a d u l t ESL classroom. Based on Mohan's language and content model, i t i s necessary t o i n c l u d e t h i s s t e p i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a l i n k w i t h the use of a s s o c i a t e d language. T h i s l i n k can be p r o v i d e d when students have some background knowledge t h a t they can access, and when they are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a s i t u a t i o n t h a t s t i m u l a t e s them t o access t h i s knowledge. Q u a l i t a t i v e analysis In t h i s second s e c t i o n , a c t u a l d i s c o u r s e i s examined t o show the kinds of decision—making exchanges t h a t took p l a c e d u r i n g the f o u r t a s k s . The q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t s o f t h i s study showed t h a t o v e r a l l , and f o r most i n d i v i d u a l moves, t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e between the t a s k s i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r p r o d u c i n g decision-making t a l k . The deeper q u e s t i o n remains then; why bother t o d i s t i n g u i s h between t a s k s as 93 l o n g as they produce the d e s i r e d language? The answer l i e s i n t he content v a l u e of the task, i n the v a l u e and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge i n v o l v e d . Throughout t h i s s e c t i o n , the terms " t h e o r e t i c a l knowlege", " t h e o r e t i c a l background knowledge", "academic knowledge", and "expert knowledge" are used t o r e f e r t o the k i n d s o f knowledge people a c q u i r e through academic or s k i l l l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s and need t o be a b l e t o g e n e r a l i z e t o s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . As mentioned e a r l i e r , the k i n d of t a l k t h a t r e v o l v e s around t h i s k i n d of knowledge has been r e f e r r e d t o as "academic d i s c o u r s e — the s p e c i a l ways of t a l k i n g expected i n s c h o o l " (Cazden, 1988:134). There i s no i m p l i c a t i o n here t h a t "academic knowledge" as i t i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y thought of i n North American/European s t y l e academic i n s t i t u t i o n s i s i n h e r e n t l y s u p e r i o r t o knowledge t h a t i s l e a r n e d through c u l t u r a l and home ex p e r i e n c e s . However, u s i n g academic or t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge, which i n c l u d e s the a b i l i t y t o t a l k about i t and g e n e r a l i z e i t , i s a necessary s k i l l f o r a l l those who wish t o pursue h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n or s k i l l t r a i n i n g . B a s i c a l l y , the p r e d i c t e d p o t e n t i a l v a l u e of the composition t a s k s was t h a t they would p r o v i d e a s o r t o f " b r i d g e " t a s k where students c o u l d use and t a l k about t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge i n a s i t u a t i o n l e s s t h r e a t e n i n g than a t o t a l l y "context-reduced" s i t u a t i o n but where they would s t i l l be r e i n f o r c i n g knowledge they needed i n t h e i r academic s k i l l development. 94 Beginning w i t h the move " e l i c i t response", t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the t a s k s ' e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n e l i c i t i n g t h i s move. T h i s move g e n e r a l l y o c c u r r e d a t the be g i n n i n g of a d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n , s e r v i n g as a way t o i d e n t i f y the i s s u e . In the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s , the w r i t e r o f t e n asked the o t h e r s f o r an e v a l u a t i o n : "OK. Any u n c l e a r p i c t u r e s ? " o r "So now we have t o d i s c u s s . . . i s the t i t l e OK?" "...'and they d i d n ' t have good communication', r i g h t ? I s t h a t good? I s t h a t enough?" or asked f o r su g g e s t i o n s : "How about t h i n g s t o be took out?" o r "OK. Give me i d e a s " In these t a s k s , the w r i t e r i s i n v o l v e d i n a p r o c e s s t h a t w i l l h o p e f u l l y become i n t e r n a l i z e d ; t h i s i s the pro c e s s o f l o o k i n g a t s e c t i o n s of w r i t t e n t e x t and q u e s t i o n i n g whether i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o the r e s t o f the t e x t o r whether the message w i l l be c l e a r t o a reader, and i n i t i a t i n g a se a r c h f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s . In the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s , the move seems t o serv e a somewhat d i f f e r e n t purpose. In t a s k 3, students must r a t e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t men on t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y as p o t e n t i a l husbands. The move serves p r i m a r i l y as a d e v i c e t o move from one a l t e r n a t i v e t o another: 95 "OK, t h i s one f i r s t . Give reasons." "OK, next one. What do you t h i n k ? " "How about the f i r s t one?" and o c c a s i o n a l l y t o c h a l l e n g e a r a t i n g o r seek c l a r i f i c a t i o n "How about 'sees a p s y c h i a t r i s t r e g u l a r l y ' ? 1 1 " I s something wrong w i t h him?" In t a s k 4, the t a l k i n v o l v e d mainly c a t e g o r i z i n g g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o reasons which supported the use of a p i p e l i n e and those which supported the use o f a sea r o u t e t o t r a n s p o r t o i l . The move mainly i n v o l v e d s e e k i n g agreement w i t h one's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : " I t s reason f o r the sea route, r i g h t ? " B a s i c a l l y , the d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s move d u r i n g the composition t a s k s and the 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 served as s o r t o f a prompt f o r d i a l o g u e between w r i t e r and reader, and asked p a r t i c i p a n t s t o t h i n k l i k e w r i t e r s , u s i n g c r i t i c a l s k i l l s they were l e a r n i n g t o tap. In c o n t r a s t , e l i c i t i n g a response i n the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s was almost e x c l u s i v e l y s p e c i f i c t o the p r a c t i c a l t a s k a t hand, and d i d not serve t o generate any t h e o r e t i c a l background knowledge. T h i s w i l l be more apparent when the o t h e r moves are examined. The second move was "Rate", which i n v o l v e d making e v a l u a t i v e statements about some s t a t e o f a f f a i r s . In the r e v i s i o n t ask, a r a t i n g was made a f t e r the w r i t e r read a p o r t i o n o f t e x t : 96 W r i t e r : How about t h i n g s t o be took out? L i s t e n e r : No. I s OK. I t s good i n f o r m a t i o n . In t h i s case the w r i t e r c o u l d continue, but i n o t h e r cases the r a t i n g would be n e g a t i v e : L i s t e n e r : I t h i n k you need more i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n . or W r i t e r : OK. 'Last year he deci d e d t o q u i t the d r i n k ' . L i s t e n e r : But t h a t i s sudden. I don't know, f o r me i t s a suddenly c o n c l u s i o n . or W r i t e r : T i t l e OK? "The Drunk Man". L i s t e n e r : But f i n a l l y he not drunk... L i s t e n e r : I don't know...for me..."The Drunk Man i s not q u i t e s u i t a b l e w i t h your composition." In t h i s case, the p a r t i c i p a n t s made oth e r s u g g e s t i o n s which would be r a t e d as w e l l : W r i t e r : ...or maybe "Drink can't s o l v e your problems". L i s t e n e r : Oh yeah. That's r i g h t . . . L i s t e n e r : That's good. E x a c t l y . Sometimes the w r i t e r r a t e d a s u g g e s t i o n t h a t was made: L i s t e n e r : . . . t h i s p a r t put i n your i n t r o d u c t i o n . W r i t e r : In the i n t r o d u c t i o n ? L i s t e n e r : So you know... W r i t e r : I thought i f I can put i t i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , but I t h i n k i t i s much b e t t e r i n the c o n c l u s i o n . S i m i l a r l y , i n the e d i t i n g task, readers needed t o note when something was "not r i g h t " ( B e r e i t e r & Scardamalia, 1981), but t h i s time i t i n v o l v e d problems w i t h word usage and grammar. Most o f t e n , a r a t i n g was not made i n so many words, but an a l t e r n a t i v e was o f f e r e d immediately. In a few cases, however, an e v a l u a t i v e statement came f i r s t : 97 W r i t e r : "...but he f o r g o t put the money i n the p a r k i n g pay" Reader: I don't t h i n k so...he f o r g o t t o put the money i n the 'parking pay'. The s t u d e n t s e v e n t u a l l y f i g u r e d out t h a t the c o r r e c t e x p r e s s i o n was 'parking meter'. In Task 3, as was e v i d e n t from the q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t s , the move " r a t e " was made f r e q u e n t l y . T h i s t a s k , however, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y conducive t o g e n e r a t i n g t h i s move, because i t p r o v i d e s a l i s t o f q u a l i t i e s f o r each person 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 out whether the q u a l i t i e s a re good or bad. The onl y background knowledge needed here i s an understanding o f the meanings of the p a r t i c u l a r words used i n these d e s c r i p t i o n s . S: No. He i s not good person f o r Sophia. S: How come? Give me a reason. S: He had many g i r l f r i e n d s i n the p a s t . S: But why he go see a p s y c h i a t r i s t r e g u l a r l y ? Maybe something wrong here. S: Yeah. No good. Crazy. S: Wants Sophie t o be f u l l - t i m e w i f e . . . T h i s i s no good p o i n t . S: And t h r e e c h i l d r e n . S: Three c h i l d r e n . S: Yeah. I s b i g problem. The exchanges t h a t these r a t i n g s l e d t o w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r on. In c o n t r a s t t o Task 3, q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t s showed t h a t Task 4 was not l i k e l y t o e l i c i t the move " r a t e " , and the reason i s probably t h a t t h i s t a s k i s more one o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n than e v a l u a t i o n . O c c a s i o n a l l y an e v a l u a t i v e type o f move was p a r t o f the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s : 98 S: Well the sea r o u t e i s dangerous, you know why? S: Sea r o u t e ' s danger, yeah. S: Numerous s h i p have been wrecked i n t h i s water. I mean l o t o f s h i p t h a t i s breaking, r i g h t ? S: So, f o r the p i p e l i n e . The examination of i n d i v i d u a l student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t most of the r a t i n g moves were made by one person, and t h i s person was a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r most o f the e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t accompanied r a t i n g s . In g e n e r a l , making the c o g n i t i v e connections r e q u i r e d t o c l a s s i f y the g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n was d i f f i c u l t f o r t h i s group of f o u r s t u d e n t s . The b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e between the composition r e l a t e d t a s k s and the 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 i n the former, r a t i n g s are made based on background t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge about w r i t i n g and about grammar and word usage. The knowledge brought t o bear d u r i n g these t a s k s i s t r a n s f e r a b l e t o o t h e r w r i t i n g t a s k s . Research i n d i c a t e s t h a t when one p a r t i c i p a n t notes t h a t something needs t o be changed, i t h e l p s not o n l y the w r i t e r but o t h e r r e a d e r s become more aware of p o t e n t i a l problems i n subsequent compositions ( H i l l o c k s , 1986). In the l a t t e r t a s k s , the r a t i n g s are mostly based on i n f o r m a t i o n i n the immediate t e x t . In t a s k 3, reasons f o r r a t i n g s are based on p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e , so students do not need t o search v e r y f a r . In Task 4, r a t i n g s are r a r e , and take the form more of reasons f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , which, as was mentioned, was o f t e n a d i f f i c u l t jump f o r these ESL students. 99 An examination o f the move "generate a l t e r n a t i v e s " r e v e a l s s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s . Suggestions d u r i n g the r e v i s i o n t a s k show an attempt t o h e l p the w r i t e r be more e x p l i c i t and f i n d a way t o make meaning more c l e a r t o the reader. I t goes beyond r a t i n g , but sometimes takes the p l a c e o f an e v a l u a t i v e comment, as a r a t i n g i s i m p l i e d : S: You should have another reason. One i s not enough. S: You can say t h a t ..."but now he r e a l i z e t h a t d r i n k i n g i s not the s o l u t i o n o f h i s problem" ...sound good? Then go on. S: So maybe you can w r i t e more about around where she l i v e , the p l a c e where she l i v e . S: Maybe we don't c a l l i t a house, we can c a l l i t a s h e l t e r , a hut... The next exchange d e a l s w i t h an i n a p p r o p r i a t e t i t l e . The composition was about the student's aunt and u n c l e and t h e i r c h i l d r e n , but the t i t l e was "My Aunt and Her C h i l d r e n " S: Why i s the 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 he...he's o u t s i d e the t i t l e ? W r i t e r : No, he's t h e r e . S: No, "My Aunt and Her C h i l d r e n " W r i t e r : "My Aunt and Her Family", maybe? S: You can say "My Aunt's Family", yeah. S: Because i n your composition you are t a l k i n g about your u n c l e , your aunt and t h e i r c h i l d r e n . A l l o f these comments are p a r t o f a se a r c h f o r more e x p l i c i t meaning. Although they are d i r e c t e d towards a p r a c t i c a l t a s k , they again r e p r e s e n t p a r t o f a pro c e s s t h a t w r i t e r s must get used t o u s i n g over and over a g a i n . 1 0 0 S i m i l a r l y i n the e d i t i n g task, students make suggestions based on t h e i r knowledge of grammar and word usage. Writer: "He parked h i s car the other side of s t r e e t " . Reader: He parked h i s car on the other side of st r e e t . Reader: On...with on, the preposition. Reader: How about with 'the street'? Reader: Of the street. Reader: 'He parked h i s car on the other side of the s t r e e t ' . Writer: And i s that a 'police t i c k e t ' ? That c a l l e d 'police t i c k e t ' ? Reader: Is not p o l i c e t i c k e t . . . Writer: Is there any other...? Reader: I think i t s a parking...parking... Reader: 'Parking ticket'...yeah. In contrast to the composition-related tasks, the other tasks required very l i t t l e o r i g i n a l or background knowledge rela t e d generating of alternatives. S: I f I were her, I would get married with Winston. S: I think maybe j u s t . . . j u s t keep alone...forget marry. S: Just wait for another...better guy. S: And she loves children, so she might r e a l l y l i k e to get married with somebody. S: I think she should keep her job. S: She shouldn't marry with him. Students did not go beyond the information provided for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r task. In Task 4 there was a b i t more c r e a t i v i t y : S: We cannot choose any of these one because they both are dangerous. S: What about the airplane? You can b u i l d a big airplane. S: We can buy o i l from other places. 101 In t h i s t a s k some students decided, from the i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n , t h a t both o p t i o n s o f f e r e d were unacceptable. They t r i e d s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s . However, as the q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d , these suggestions were r a r e compared t o the frequency i n some o t h e r t a s k s . Again, i n summary, the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s seem t o have e l i c i t e d s u ggestions based on academic knowledge which c o u l d be u s e f u l a t another time. In Task 3 the s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t were made r e f l e c t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s ' emotions and p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s . While p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n s and e x p e r i e n c e s are v a l u a b l e , one might suggest t h a t they do not c o n t r i b u t e enough t o the development of p r o f i c i e n c y i n e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e because they do not r e q u i r e a c o g n i t i v e c o n n e c t i o n t o be made between p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e and t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge. In Task 4, w h i l e some sugg e s t i o n s may have moved beyond the immediate t e x t , t h e r e was an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h i s t a s k was too d i f f i c u l t f o r some o f the s t u d e n t s . The coding " i d e n t i f y purpose" was a s s i g n e d t o moves which p r o v i d e d an e x p l a n a t i o n or reason f o r a r a t i n g or s u g g e s t i o n but d i d not r e f e r t o e i t h e r e x p e r i e n t i a l or t h e o r e t i c a l background knowledge t o do so. For example, i n the r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g t a s k s a reader might e x p l a i n the purpose of a comment or q u e s t i o n , or a w r i t e r would i d e n t i f y the reason f o r a p a r t i c u l a r word or p a r t of the t e x t but not j u s t i f y i t w i t h an accepted standard or r u l e : 102 W r i t 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 because what I 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 r e p e a t 'study' a g a i n . I want t o t r y t h i s word. W r i t e r : So f i r s t , i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , I j u s t say what happened 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 because you are t e l l i n g t h a t your u n c l e doesn't have l a n d . Sometimes purpose r e f e r r e d t o the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the composition: W r i t e r : I imagine the s t o r y because she (the teacher) s a i d we have t o imagine the s t o r y . . . so t h a t ' s why I say, you know, f i r s t the p i c t u r e I saw...and then I s a i d "Jack i s our neighbor". In Tasks 3 and 4 purpose r e f e r s more t o reasons f o r making a c h o i c e , but the reasons are taken d i r e c t l y from the t e x t : Task 3 S: How come she need t o continue her job? S: Because ...she have a chance f o r the l e a d e r s h i p w i t h her company... she l i k e her job and she w i l l b e t t e r chance t o promotion. S: He has 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 expresses h i s l o v e openly. Task 4: S: ...the l o c a t i o n had s e v e r a l earthquakes... S: So t h a t ' s the reason f o r the sea r o u t e . S: The c o s t of 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 than the c o s t of t r a n s p o r t i n g the o i l by sea...so t h a t goes t o sea r o u t e . I t l o o k s l i k e r e a s o n - g i v i n g i n t a s k s 3 and 4 served as a way t o h e l p c l a s s i f y g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n as p a r t of the e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s . In t a s k s 1 and 2 i t served as p a r t of the s e a r c h f o r ways t o become more org a n i z e d and e x p l i c i t i n w r i t i n g , 103 and r e q u i r e d , once again, t h i n k i n g of the gap between a w r i t e r ' s product and a reader's understanding, and c r e a t i n g a d i a l o g u e t h a t c o u l d work towards b r i d g i n g t h i s gap. Perhaps the most i n t e r e s t i n g and important o f the moves i s the one coded " J u s t i f y " . T h i s coding was a s s i g n e d when p a r t i c i p a n t s made an e v a l u a t i v e statement o r a s u g g e s t i o n and backed i t up by r e f e r r i n g t o some c r i t e r i a o r r u l e . The c r i t e r i a c o u l d be e x p e r i e n t i a l knowledge o r more a c a d e m i c a l l y r e l a t e d knowledge, as long as i t ' s source was o u t s i d e the immediate s i t u a t i o n or t e x t . In the r e v i s i o n t a s k standards or c r i t e r i a were r o o t e d i n the student's understanding t h a t a w r i t e r needs t o be aware o f the background knowledge of the audience: L i s t e n e r : The problem i s you need t o d e s c r i b e the p o v e r t y . Because i n our mind our poverty, we know our poverty, but i n Canada i s d i f f e r e n t . In Canada, we speak about the poverty, we are poor, but we have house... T h i s comment l e d t o a long search f o r content and language t h a t would h e l p the w r i t e r be more e x p l i c i t , e v e n t u a l l y ending w i t h t h i s exchange: 104 W r i t e r : OK, I t a l k about t h a t because they are s i c k - the b i g stomach... and they don't have c l o t h e s . . . t h e y a r e . . . t h e y don't have home...this i s house (shows p i c t u r e ) . . . y o u know? Look a t the house, the w a l l s . . . L i s t e n e r : Yeah, you can say a few sentences about her house... L i s t e n e r : I f we put a name... L i s t e n e r : Look l i k e i n V i e t Nam... L i s t e n e r : Maybe we don't c a l l i t a house, we can 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 you w r i t e the name here? L i s t e n e r : I know because I saw i n my country too, people i n the war, t h e i r house was blown, so they had a b l a n k e t on something. W r i t e r : Yeah, see...plastic...maybe I w i l l t a l k about the house, about the 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 the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by the students comes from t h e i r own experience, the knowledge t h a t prompts them t o access t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i s knowledge about w r i t i n g . S i m i l a r l y , when one l i s t e n e r d i s a g r e e s w i t h the t i t l e "The Drunk Man" f o r a s t o r y about a man who e v e n t u a l l y stops d r i n k i n g , she e x p l a i n s why: L i s t e n e r : Because 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 drunk...his l i f e i s not good...but i n the l a s t paragraph he changes...I mean your c o n c l u s i o n i s he'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 f e l t t h a t the t i t l e should r e f l e c t the f i n a l message, and e v e n t u a l l y the group agreed on a new t i t l e . In the e d i t i n g t ask, j u s t i f i c a t i o n s g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d t o r u l e s o f grammar and mechanics: Reader: I t h i n k the sentence i s a run-on sentence, so many s u b j e c t s . . . Reader: He has t o use "another" because t h i s i s the second time. 105 Students were a l s o supposed t o keep t r a c k o f t h e i r f r e q u e n t e r r o r - t y p e s , so when they named the type o f e r r o r o r the r u l e , t h i s was c o n s i d e r e d j u s t i f y i n g : W r i t e r : (reading) '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 put the ' s ' but I f o r g o t the 'e'. Reader: S o . . . s p e l l i n g . The p r o c e s s o f making d e c i s i o n s about grammar and s p e l l i n g may h e l p i n d i v i d u a l s l e a r n what k i n d o f e r r o r s they are prone t o . Students a l s o shared what they had l e a r n e d d u r i n g i n d i v i d u a l conferences w i t h the t e a c h e r : S: ...because, l a s t time when I t a l k e d t o the t e a c h e r . . . she c o r r e c t e d mine, she s a i d i f one sentence, even t h a t i s o n l y s h o r t sentence, i f you got a s u b j e c t , verb and o b j e c t , t h a t ' s a l r e a d y good f o r one sentence. In Task 3, j u s t i f y i n g t y p i c a l l y i n v o l v e d t a k i n g g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n and t u r n i n g i t i n t o a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n : S I : ...he has many mistakes and I t h i n k she's not going t o get m a rried him. S2: What k i n d o f mistakes? SI: What k i n d o f mistakes? He had many g i r l f r i e n d s . S3: No, i t say i n the p a s t . . . SI: But he had a l o t , but he w i l l c o n t i n u e . S2: How do you know? SI: Because the man who had a l o t o f g i r l f r i e n d s b e f o r e . . . and from the oth e r group: SI: Too many g i r l f r i e n d s i s no good? S2: Maybe you are the next one...I mean so many g i r l f r i e n d s , r i g h t ? Maybe she i s the next one, and the next one i s another one.. S3: Yeah, maybe...he used her. So she b e t t e r don't get mar r i e d w i t h him. 106 and s i m i l a r l y SI: And a l s o you see ( 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 l o v e openly'. S2: I s a bad t h i n g ? I don't t h i n k so. SI: You don't t h i n k so? You know, some boys even maybe he doesn't l i k e you or maybe he doesn't l o v e you he say "ohhh...I l o v e you so much..." S3: Saying l i e ? SI: Oh, maybe not l i a r , but they j u s t l i k e t o say something too much. S3: To make her i n t e r e s t e d . and another sequence concerning a man who i s 20 ye a r s o l d e r than "Sophie" SI: But you know when they got some c h i l d r e n , and the c h i l d r e n say "my Dad i s too o l d . . . " S2: No, I don't t h i n k the c h i l d r e n going t o say any t h i n g about my dad i s too o l d . . . SI: But when they see t h e i r o t h e r f r i e n d s have a young f a t h e r , i s make i t bad... I t i s q u i t e apparent t h a t the students are t h i n k i n g i n terms of t h e i r p e r s o n a l knowledge. They are t h i n k i n g beyond the immediate s i t u a t i o n o n l y t o the p o i n t t h a t they are c o n s i d e r i n g the p o s s i b l e f u t u r e o f the u n r e a l c h a r a c t e r s i n the t e x t . While i t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s they make may be u s e f u l i n some f u t u r e p e r s o n a l d e c i s i o n , i t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t the knowledge they are a c c e s s i n g t o j u s t i f y t h e i r d e c i s i o n s w i l l be of use i n f u t u r e academic t a s k s . F i n a l l y , i n Task 4, moves were coded " J u s t i f y " when the students were a b l e t o make some i n f e r e n c e about the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the t e x t , t h a t i s , e l a b o r a t e o r e x p l a i n the meaning of a statement i n the t e x t : S: 'One h a l f o f the p i p e l i n e has t o be l a i d over 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 107 SI: Unexplained breaks 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 but they say i t s l e s s . . . S3: Yeah, not more than a few thousand g a l l o n s . SI: Unexplained breaks...common...although... S2: So the meaning i s . . . i f they have damage..it i s not so... SI: I t i s l e s s than... S3: Not a b i g damage. SI: So t h i s one i s f o r which one? For the p i p e l i n e o r sea route? Because i s . . . I guess the meaning o f the a c c i d e n t i s not a b i g d e a l . S3: Yeah, so t h a t ' s why I put the p i p e l i n e . G e n e r a t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the i n f o r m a t i o n items p r o v i d e d i n t h i s t e x t appears t o r e q u i r e somewhat more complex t h i n k i n g than does j u s t i f y i n g o p i n i o n s about the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d i n Task 3. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which are not based on p e r s o n a l experience r e q u i r e the students t o t h i n k more i n terms of a g l o b a l s i t u a t i o n ; f o r i n s t a n c e , t h i s "imaginary" s i t u a t i o n can be l i n k e d t o a l a r g e r g o a l of making d e c i s i o n s about worldwide environmental problems. R e t u r n i n g t o the concept of a decision-making p r o c e s s , another s k i l l r e q u i r e d i n decision-making d e f i n e d by Ross (1981) i s " i d e n t i f y i n g a p p r o p r i a t e c r i t e r i a " , which i s s i m i l a r t o j u s t i f y i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e o r a r a t i n g a c c o r d i n g t o c r i t e r i a . Ross i d e n t i f i e s f i v e l e v e l s f o r t h i s s k i l l : l ) n o c r i t e r i a ; 2)good t h i n g s and bad t h i n g s ; 3 ) s e l f - r e f e r e n c e d c r i t e r i a ; 4 ) c r i t e r i a r e f e r t o o t h e r people; and 5 ) c r i t e r i a are g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s . A f t e r l o o k i n g a t the moves coded "generate a l t e r n a t i v e " , i t can be suggested t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e s suggested d u r i n g the composition a c t i v i t i e s were o f t e n a t the h i g h e s t l e v e l o f m a t u r i t y : " c o n s t r u c t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s u s i n g c r i t e r i a " . Moreover, i t i s suggested 108 t h a t the c r i t e r i a used were l a r g e l y " g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s " , d e s c r i b e d by Ross as a combination of " s e l f - r e f e r e n c e d concerns and c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r o t h e r people i n t o a g e n e r a l s e t of p r i n c i p l e s . . . t h a t c o u l d have u n i v e r s a l v a l i d i t y " (p.283). In the r e v i s i o n t a s k the r a t i n g s , a l t e r n a t i v e s and c r i t e r i a were r e l a t e d t o an understanding of the need t o make meaning e x p l i c i t t o a reader and t h a t i n o r d e r t o do t h i s one must meet some g e n e r a l c r i t e r i a . A l l o f t h i s had t o be worked out w i t h i n the author's g o a l f o r the p a r t i c u l a r composition. In the e d i t i n g t ask, the c r i t e r i a were l a r g e l y r u l e - b a s e d , and these l e a r n e d r u l e s had t o be drawn from the r e p e r t o i r e s of the students. In c o n t r a s t , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see how c r i t e r i a used f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s i n Task 3 c o u l d move beyond Ross' l e v e l 4 ( " c r i t e r i a r e f e r t o o t h e r p e o p l e " ) , and they were o f t e n a t l e v e l 2 ("good t h i n g s and bad t h i n g s " ) . One o t h e r comment can be made con c e r n i n g the a t t i t u d e of the students toward the f o u r t a s k s . Although the students were not asked d i r e c t l y how they f e l t about the t a s k s , the f e e l i n g of the r e s e a r c h e r was t h a t t h e r e was more enthusiasm about the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s . T h i s judgement i s based l a r g e l y on the s t u d e n t s ' w i l l i n g n e s s t o s t i c k w i t h the r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g t a s k s even though they were time consuming, w h i l e the students tended t o c u t o f f the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s as soon as p o s s i b l e . I f t h i s i s t r u e , then one e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t the students r e c o g n i z e t h a t they have a p e r s o n a l stake i n the w r i t i n g 109 a c t i v i t i e s . In any f u t u r e r e s e a r c h of t h i s type, student comments about the v a r i o u s t a s k s c o u l d p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t . The primary g o a l of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n was t o suggest t h a t s i n c e the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s were as e f f e c t i v e i n g e n e r a t i n g decision-making language as two " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " t a s k s , t h a t 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 o f f e r a n a t u r a l a l t e r n a t i v e t o c o n t r i v e d decision-making t a s k s i n the a d u l t ESL classroom. That they are " n a t u r a l " means t h a t these t a s k s are a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r e d v a l u a b l e f o r o t h e r a s p e c t s of language development, s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r improving composition s k i l l s . At the same time as they b u i l d on the student's e x i s t i n g knowledge base i n the area of composition, they p r o v i d e a c o n t e x t f o r students t o move through the decision-making process, g e n e r a t i n g the language of d e c i s i o n making. I m p l i c a t i o n s A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on i n t e r a c t i v e group t a s k s i n the ESL classroom i n d i c a t e s t h a t w h i l e t h e r e i s an i n c r e a s i n g awareness t h a t some co n n e c t i o n e x i s t s between t a s k and the use of c e r t a i n language f u n c t i o n s , and t h a t s m a l l group i n t e r a c t i o n i n c r e a s e s the amount of v e r b a l n e g o t i a t i o n between non-native speakers, t h i s awareness stops s h o r t o f understanding the a c t u a l q u a l i t a t i v e v a l u e o f t a s k s f o r the l a r g e r d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e s and p a t t e r n s t h a t 110 they can generate. Although 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 a c t i v i t i e s need t o access t h e o r e t i c a l background knowledge i n o r d e r t o e l i c i t e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e , the g e n e r a l assumption seems t o remain t h a t more t a l k i s b e t t e r t a l k , without a s s e s s i n g what r e a l l y happens i n the d i s c o u r s e generated d u r i n g an a c t i v i t y . In a d d i t i o n , the e x t e n s i v e body of r e s e a r c h on w r i t t e n composition e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e r e i s a c o g n i t i v e l i n k between w r i t i n g and d e c i s i o n - making, and t h e r e i s reasonable support f o r the v a l u e o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n f o r improving composition s k i l l s , y e t t h e r e has been no examination of the v a l u e of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n as an i n t e r a c t i v e decision-making a c t i v i t y . The purpose of the p r e s e n t study was t o e x p l o r e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n as an a c t i v i t y t o e l i c i t the language of decision-making i n the a d u l t ESL classroom. T h i s was done by comparing the frequency of decision-making "moves" generated d u r i n g two c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s and two " c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n " t a s k s , and a l s o by a p p l y i n g a q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s t o the d i s c o u r s e . The q u a n t i t a t i v e f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the w r i t i n g t a s k s were at l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e f o r e l i c i t i n g d e c i s i o n-making language, but the r e a l d i f f e r e n c e between the t a s k s appears i n the q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f the d e c i s i o n making d i s c o u r s e . B a s i c a l l y , d u r i n g the w r i t i n g t a s k s the decision-making moves drew upon knowledge t h a t was informed or "expert", w h i l e d u r i n g the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s the moves drew upon knowledge t h a t was l a r g e l y I l l e x p e r i e n t i a l or p e r s o n a l . Thus, one i m p l i c a t i o n from t h i s study i s t h a t the c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t y can o f f e r a n a t u r a l a l t e r n a t i v e t o c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s ; as a n a t u r a l step i n the process o f l e a r n i n g t o w r i t e compositions, the t a s k p r o v i d e s a content-based d e c i s i o n - making s i t u a t i o n i n which a d u l t ESL students can use both p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and language. While i t might seem p r e d i c t a b l e t h a t the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s would produce what might be c a l l e d l e s s than s e r i o u s p a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h a t w r i t i n g t a s k s would n a t u r a l l y be more m o t i v a t i n g and s e r i o u s , the f a c t i s t h a t t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n has never been t e s t e d . T h i s study p r o v i d e s an a n a l y t i c a l view of what a c t u a l l y happens i n the d i s c o u r s e of f o u r "decision-making" a c t i v i t i e s . While many commercial t e x t s i n c l u d e a c t i v i t i e s c l a i m i n g t o generate language t h a t i s l i n k e d t o decision-making, an a n a l y s i s o f the d i s c o u r s e i s necessary t o p r o v i d e evidence t h a t the process i s a c t u a l l y a c h i e v i n g t h i s end. Another c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h i s study t h e r e f o r e , i s t h a t i t e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t d i s c o u r s e d u r i n g i n t e r a c t i o n can and should be a n a l y s e d on o t h e r l e v e l s than have been examined p r e v i o u s l y . By a n a l y s i n g the d i s c o u r s e generated d u r i n g a c t i v i t i e s , r e s e a r c h e r s can work toward p r o v i d i n g q u a l i t y language experiences f o r people. The v a l u e o f d e c i s i o n - making t a s k s f o r g e n e r a t i n g e x p o s i t o r y d i s c o u r s e i s an aspect of q u a l i t y t h a t has b a r e l y been addressed, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n t o the content of the t a s k . The 112 importance of d i s c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e s such as e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e has not been on the r e s e a r c h agenda e i t h e r i n terms o f a n a l y s i n g process or i n making d e c i s i o n s about what should be happening i n the classroom. T h i s study i s h o p e f u l l y a s m a l l step towards a " r e - v i s i o n " of both the p r o c e s s and the product of the i n t e r a c t i v e small-group ESL a c t i v i t y . L i m i t a t i o n s o f the p r e s e n t study The main l i m i t a t i o n of the p r e s e n t study i s t h a t i t was e x p l o r a t o r y . To b e g i n with, because i t d i d not c l o s e l y resemble any p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , a new c o d i n g system had t o be d e v i s e d . T h e r e f o r e , b e f o r e making any broad g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about the r e s u l t s i t would be necessary f o r o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s to e v a l u a t e the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h i s c o d i n g system t o new data. However, the c o d i n g system was c a r e f u l l y drawn from r e l e v a n t e x i s t i n g c o d i n g systems, and s h o u l d be v a l u a b l e as 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, the study i s based on a sample of o n l y e i g h t s u b j e c t s , although the repeated measures d e s i g n produced 160 measures of response. R e p l i c a t i o n s t u d i e s would need t o be c a r r i e d out i n o r d e r t o c o n f i r m the c u r r e n t f i n d i n g s . F i n a l l y , i n terms of the q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s , the v a l u e judgments may be seen as one p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n . They are, however, based on r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e t h a t emphasizes the need f o r a s t r u c t u r e d i n t e g r a t i o n of content and language so t h a t a c t i v i t i e s w i l l have maximum language l e a r n i n g v a l u e . 113 In any case, i t c o u l d be v a l u a b l e f o r t h i s data t o be r e - asses s e d i n r e l a t i o n t o the r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e . Suggestions f o r future research T h i s study was intended t o be e x p l o r a t o r y , t o r a i s e some consciousness about an aspect o f second language l e a r n i n g t h a t has not been c l o s e l y examined, and so t o p r o v i d e a p o s s i b l e b a s i s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . The use of a co d i n g system and q u a n t i t a t i v e measurement was mainly t o determine i f such a n a l y s i s i s f e a s i b l e , and the q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s was aimed a t examining the r o l e o f decision-making t a s k s i n language t e a c h i n g . As mentioned b e f o r e , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h c o u l d concern i t s e l f w i t h r e p l i c a t i n g the presen t study, e i t h e r t o c o n f i r m the r e s u l t s f o r a s i m i l a r p o p u l a t i o n or t o attempt t o g e n e r a l i z e t o oth e r p o p u l a t i o n s . S u b j e c t s i n the pr e s e n t study were a d u l t ESL students a t the "uppe r - i n t e r m e d i a t e " p r o f i c i e n c y l e v e l . 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 the same q u e s t i o n with lower o r h i g h e r l e v e l s t u d e n t s . Another a d a p t a t i o n of the presen t study might be t o va r y the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n t a s k s , as i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t o t h e r t a s k s c o u l d o f f e r a b e t t e r context f o r e l i c i t i n g e x p o s i t o r y t a l k . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h might a l s o employ a more e l a b o r a t e coding system, i n order t o examine the s m a l l e r components o f the language o f e v a l u a t i o n and c h o i c e . T h i s would pr o b a b l y n e c e s s i t a t e a much l a r g e r s u b j e c t group i n o r d e r t o c o l l e c t 114 enough frequency data t o apply s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s t o each s m a l l component. The most i n t e r e s t i n g r e s e a r c h would i n v o l v e l o o k i n g f o r l a s t i n g e f f e c t s o f d i f f e r e n t t a s k s on i n c r e a s e s i n a b i l i t y t o e v a l u a t e and use both the p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l language o f decision-making. T h i s c o u l d become v e r y complex, however, i n v o l v i n g l a r g e experimental and c o n t r o l groups over s e v e r a l months, and c o u l d r a i s e some d e f i n i t e e t h i c a l concerns. F i n a l l y , i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o e x p l o r e the e f f e c t s o f p r e - t e a c h i n g aspects o f decision-making language and m o n i t o r i n g t h e i r use d u r i n g t a s k s such as those used i n the p r e s e n t study. Summary The purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h was t o e x p l o r e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the 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 s f o r e l i c i t i n g the language o f decision-making. E i g h t a d u l t ESL students p a r t i c i p a t e d i n two c o l l a b o r a t i v e c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s and two i n t e r a c t i v 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 . O r a l i n t e r a c t i o n d u r i n g the t a s k s was audiotaped, t r a n s c r i b e d , and coded f o r f i v e decision-making moves based on a combination o f e x i s t i n g coding systems. The study compared the frequency o f the f i v e decision-making moves e l i c i t e d d u r i n g the f o u r t a s k s . In a d d i t i o n , a q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d t o the d i s c o u r s e . 115 F i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t , under the c o n d i t i o n s o f the p r e s e n t study, the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s were as e f f e c t i v e as the 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 n e l i c i t i n g the language of decision-making. Moreover, the q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s suggests t h a t the language generated d u r i n g the c o m p o s i t i o n - r e l a t e d t a s k s can be d e s c r i b e d as " e x p o s i t o r y t a l k " , o r language which i s l i n k e d t o t h e o r e t i c a l o r g e n e r a l i z a b l e background knowledge. In c o n t r a s t , the language generated d u r i n g the c o n s t r u c t e d d e c i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s i s almost e x c l u s i v e l y r e l a t e d t o e i t h e r p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e or the t a s k immediately a t hand. R e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest t h a t 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 can p r o v i d e a n a t u r a l c o n t e x t f o r i n t e r a c t i v e decision-making a t the same time as they serve as p a r t of the w r i t i n g component i n the ESL classroom. In a d d i t i o n , the i n depth a n a l y s i s of d i s c o u r s e may add t o the s m a l l body of e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h t h a t has begun t o b r i d g e p r o c e s s and product. Background t o the problem, a review of r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e , the d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n and procedures, and d e t a i l s of the i n f o r m a t i o n summarized above were pre s e n t e d i n p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r s . Copies of m a t e r i a l s used d u r i n g the procedures are c o n t a i n e d i n the appendices. 116 REFERENCES Beach, R. (1986). 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. C o l l e g e Composition and Communication. 37, 1, 56-65. Bejarno, Y. (1987). 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. Benton, S. & Blohm, P. (1986). E f f e c t o f q u e s t i o n type and p o s i t i o n on measures o f conceptual e l a b o r a t i o n i n w r i t i n g . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 20, 1, 98-108. B e r e i t e r , C. & Scardamalia, M. (1981). From c o n v e r s a t i o n t o composition: the r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a develop- mental p r o c e s s . In R. G l a z e r (Ed.) Advances 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: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1-64. B e r e i t e r , C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology o f W r i t t e n Composition. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Bowers, B. and Godfrey, J . (1983). D e c i s i o n s . A g i n c o u r t , O n t a r i o : Dominie Press L t d . B r i c e Heath, S. (1989). Speech Genres and Other L i f e Course Matters. Plenary Address, 1989 TESL Canada Conference Calgary, A l b e r t a . Brock, C. (1986). The e f f e c t s of r e f e r e n t i a l q u e s t i o n s on ESL classroom d i s c o u r s e . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 20, 1, 47- 58. Brown, G. et a l . (1984). Teaching T a l k . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Byrd, D. & Clemente-Cabetas, I. (1980). React I n t e r a c t . NY: Regents P u b l i s h i n g Company C a r r e l l , P. (1987). Some i m p l i c a t i o n s of 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 composition. In U. Connor and R. Kaplan (Eds.) W r i t i n g A cross Languages: A n a l y s i s of L2 Text. Reading MA: Addison Wesley. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom D i s c o u r s e / The Language o f Teaching and L e a r n i n g . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books, Inc. 117 C l i f f o r d , J . (1981). Composing i n stages: the e f f e c t s of a c o l l a b o r a t i v e pedagogy. Research i n the Teaching o f E n g l i s h . 15, 1, 37-53. Connor, U. (1987). Research f r o n t i e r s i n w r i t i n g a n a l y s i s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y . 21, 4, 677-695. Cumming, A. (1987). W r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e and second language p r o f i c i e n c y i n ESL performance. Unpublished D o c t o r a l 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, O n t a r i o . Cummins, J . (1984). 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. In 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. C o l l e g e H i l l P r e s s . Doughty, C. & P i c a , T. (1986). "Information gap" t a s k s : do they f a c i l i t a t e second language 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. F a i g l e y , L. & Witte, S. (1981). A n a l y s i n g r e v i s i o n . C o l l e g e Composition and Communication. 32, 4, 400-414. Ferguson, G. (1971). S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s i n Psychology and E d u c a t i o n . NY: McGraw H i l l , Inc. Flower, L. & Hayes, J . (1981). A c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s t h e o r y of w r i t i n g . C o l l e g e Composition and Communication. 32, 4, 365-387. Gere, A. & Stevens, R. (1985). The language of w r i t i n g groups: how o r a l response shapes r e v i s i o n . In S. Freeman (Ed.) The A c g u i s i t i o n of W r i t t e n Language. Ablex, 85-105. G r e i g J . , I t o , R., West, I. (1972). Involvement. Ryerson S o c i a l S c i e n c e S e r i e s . Toronto: McGraw H i l l Ryerson L t d . 67-68. H i l l o c k s , G. (1986). Research on W r i t t e n Composition. Urbana, IL: E r i c Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication S k i l l s , NCRE. Howell, D.C. (1987). S t a t i s t i c a l methods f o r psychology. Boston: Duxbury Press. L i n g , S. (1986). Responding t o product i n the composing p r o c e s s . TESL Canada J o u r n a l . 4, 1, 65-75. L i n g , S. & R o t h s c h i l d , D. (1988). O r a l and W r i t t e n Composing. Vancouver Community C o l l e g e . Long, M. (1981). Input, i n t e r a c t i o n , and second language a c q u i s i t i o n . In N a t i v e language and f o r e i g n language a c q u i s i t i o n , H a r r i s W i n i t z (Ed.) Annals of the New York Academy of S c i e n c e s . 379, 250-278. Long, M. (1985). A r o l e f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n second language a c q u i s i t i o n : 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 Second 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 Matters, 77-99. Long, M. and P o r t e r , P. (1985). Group work, i n t e r l a n g u a g e t a l k , and second language 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. Martlew, M. (1983). Problems and d i f f i c u l t i e s : c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t s o f w r i t i n g . In M. Martlew (Ed.). The Psychology of W r i t t e n Language. C h i c h e s t e r : John Wiley & Sons L t d . , 295-333. Mayher, J . , L e s t e r , N. & P r a d l , G. (1983). L e a r n i n g t o W r i t e / W r i t i n g t o Learn. Upper M o n t c l a i r , NJ: Boynton/Cook P u b l i s h e r s , Inc. Mohr, M. (1984). R e v i s i o n : The Rhythm of Meaning. Upper M o n t c l a i r , NJ: Boynton/Cook P u b l i s h e r s , Inc. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Company. Nold, E. (1981). R e v i s i n g . In C. F r e d e r i k s e n and J.F. Dominic (Eds.) W r i t i n g : The Nature. Development, and Teaching of W r i t t e n Communication V o l . 2. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 68-77. Nold, E. (1982). I n t e n t i o n s and conventions. In R. A. Sudol (Ed.) R e v i s i n g . E r i c C l e a r i n g h o u s e on Reading and Communication S k i l l s , NIE, 13-23. Nystrand, M. (1986) . The S t r u c t u r e of W r i t t e n Communication Orlando: Academic Press, Inc. Ochoa, A. and Shuster, S. (1980) . S o c i a l S t u d i e s i n the Mainstreamed Classroom. Boulder: ERIC Clear i n g h o u s e f o r S o c i a l S t u d i e s / S o c i a l S c i ence E d u c a t i o n . P e r e r a , K. (1984). C h i l d r e n ' s W r i t i n g and Reading - A n a l y s i n g Classroom Language. Oxford: B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , L t d . P i c a , T. (1987). Second language a c q u i s i t i o n , s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , and the classroom. A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s , 8, 1 2-21. 119 P i c a , T. & Doughty,C. (1985). Input and i n t e r a c t i o n i n the communicative language classroom: a comparison o f t e a c h e r - f r o n t e d and group a c t i v i t i e s . In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.) Input and Second Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 115-132. Ross, J . (1981). Improving a d o l e s c e n t decision-making s k i l l s . 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. (1987). Cooperative l e a r n i n g and the c o o p e r a t i v e s c h o o l . E d u c a t i o n a l Leadership. 45, 3, 7-13. Smith, B., Meux, M., Coombs, J . & P r e c i a n s , R. (1967). A Study o f the S t r a t e g i e s of Teaching. Urbana, I L : Bureau of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, C o l l e g e of E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s . S o c i a l S t u d i e s Resource Manual Grades 4-7. (1986). 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 of E d u c a t i o n . Smith, B. & Meux, M.(197 0). A Study of the L o g i c of Teaching. I l l i n o i s : U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s P r e s s . Smith, G. (1982). R e v i s i o n and improvement: making the c o n n e c t i o n . In R.A. Sudol (Ed.). R e v i s i n g . E r i c C l e a r i n g h o u s e on Reading and Communication S k i l l s , 132-139. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some r o l e s of comprehensible i n p u t and comprehensible output i n i t s development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.) Input and Second Language Development. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235-253. Swain, M. (1988). M a n i p u l a t i n g and complementing content 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. (1986). E l i c i t i n g the language f u n c t i o n of f o r e c a s t i n g / r e a s o n i n g i n elementary classrooms. The A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 32, 2, 109- 126. Tucker, R. and D'Anglejan, A. (1975). New d i r e c t i o n s i n second language t e a c h i n g . In R.C. T r o i k e and N. Modiano (eds) Proceeding of the F i r s t I n t e r - American Conference on B i l i n g u a l E d u cation, 63-72. A r l i n g t o n , VA: Center f o r A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . Wiersma, W. (1986). Research Methods i n E d u c a t i o n . Newton, MA: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. 121 APPENDIX B Task 1: R e v i s i o n (Oral and W r i t t e n Composing. L i n g & R o t h s c h i l d , 1988) S T U D E N T S P A G E T O REVISE DRAFT 1 (NARRATIVE) Students sit in a group with a tape-recorder on. S T E P S : 1. 3. REPEATED WRITER READS: TITLE of composition. INTRODUCTION. (Paragraph 1) Body of composition PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH REPEATS/EXPLAINS, IF N E C E S S A R Y . CONCLUSION (last paragraph) LISTENERS PREDICT: Maybe this composition is about DISCUSS: A Suitable? IF NOT, DELETE/ADD. Y E S NO (WHAT?) DISCUSS: Paragraphs"?, 3,4, 5, etc. A It is mostly about B. Information missing on C . Unclear pictures on D. Things to be taken out QUESTION WRITER, IF NECESSARY. DISCUSS: A Suitable? IF NOT, D E L E T E / A D D - Y E S | NO DISCUSS T O G E T H E R T H E COMPOSITION A S FOLLOWS: A Is the title OK? Why/Why not? B. What do you like best about the writing? WRITER, using tape, rewrites into draft 2. Keeps it for editing. 122 Task 2: E d i t i n g (Oral and W r i t t e n Composing, L i n g & R o t h s c h i l d , 1988) S T U D E N T S P A G E , TECHNIQUE TO EDIT: PEER EDITING B E F O R E 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 CLASS: 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. 2. The WRITER (the chief editori Gives a copy of his draft 2 to >- G R O U P (called editors) _ each editor in the group 3. A. Reads aloud one sentence. Stops. Asks, "Is it OK?" • Listens and says "Yes/No" B. If not OK, writes the symbol in the margin on the line where the error is. If OK, continues with the next sentence. Does the same as the chief editor. 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; OR iii. Put question marks in the margin and ask the teacher later on, or at Conferencing time. NOTE: 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. 1 2 3 Task 3: ESL I n t e r a c t i v e A c t i v i t y "Sophie's Dilemma" (React I n t e r a c t . Byrd & Clemente Cabetas, 1 9 8 0 ) Sophie is a beautiful and intelligent young .career woman. She works at an inter- national 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 D E R E K 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 M A R R Y WINSTON 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 M A R R Y E T H A N CONTINUE H E R 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 psy- chiatrist regularly 8 Wants Sophie to make her own deci- sion 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 at Sophie's options. Decide what she should do. What are the advantages/disadvantages of each option? Each student should state his or her opinion about which man Sophie should marry or whether she should remain si n g l e . Give reasons for your opinion. Try to reach a group decision to the problem. A huge oil discovery has been made near the northern out- post 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 earth- quakes 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 coast- line are on-shore. Almost one-half of the pipeline has to be laid over perma- frost. 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 coun- try should follow. You are Zanalanders. The following map will be useful in developing your recommendations. 125 APPENDIX C Decision-Making Moves: D e f i n i t i o n s , Examples and Coding Conventions Notes: 1. A decision-making move i s d e f i n e d as an u t t e r a n c e which serves some purpose i n the process 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 thought o r meaning- u n i t , not n e c e s s a r i l y a complete sentence. 2. Only u t t e r a n c e s r e l a t e d t o making a d e c i s i o n about the t a s k were coded. D i s c u s s i o n o f c l a s s o r t a s k procedure, and p e r s o n a l remarks u n r e l a t e d t o the t a s k are not coded. 3. Exact or near exact r e p e t i t i o n s o f an immediately p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e are not coded. The decision-making moves under study were: 1. E l i c i t Response (ER): Used 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 i n f o r m a t i o n , o r t o i d e n t i f y a problem; u s u a l l y i n q u e s t i o n form. 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 S t r u c t u r e : q u e s t i o n s r e a l t e r n a t i v e s , r e q u e s t s , v o c a b u l a r y a) e l i c i t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s or o p i n i o n s r e reasons - "How can I change i t ? " - "Should be "A Drunk Man" or "The Drunk Man"?" - "How come she needs t o continue her j o b ? " - "Which one do you agree t o b u i l d ? " b) e l i c i t i n g e v a l u a t i v e statements - " Is the grammar OK?" - "Is the t i t l e s u i t a b l e " ? - "Do you t h i n k he i s a good person f o r her"? - "Which one i s b e t t e r ? " 126 c) i d e n t i f y i n g a s p e c i f i c problem - (may serve 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 w e l l ) - "Excuse me, you s a i d t h e r e are two reasons t o di v o r c e . . . y o u s a i d o n l y one reason...what was the othe r reason?" - "Do we need 'one day' and a comma?" (a student q u e s t i o n s the w r i t e r ' s use of a comma f o l l o w i n g the phrase "one day") - "What about "Sees a p s y c h i a t r i s t r e g u l a r l y ? " (the t e x t of Task 3 informs t h a t one of the men they 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 " - the student i s b r i n g i n g t h i s up as a p o s s i b l e problem) d) e l i c i t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n necessary t o s o l v e the problem - "How do you s p e l l 'meter'"? - " Is t h a t c a l l e d " p o l i c e t i c k e t ' " ? Can a l s o be a request i n the impe r a t i v e form: - "OK. Give me i d e a s . " - "Give me a reason." 2. Rate (R): An e v a l u a t i v e statement s e r v i n g t o p r o v i d e support, i d e n t i f y a new problem, o r d i s a g r e e w i t h an a l t e r n a t i v e . F u n c t i o n s : e v a l u a t i n g , ranking, j u d g i n g , c r i t i c i z i n g S t r u c t u r e : e v a l u a t i v e a d j e c t i v e s , verbs o f judgment a) make a p o s i t i v e statement (give support) - "Nice t i t l e . Great." - "Ethan i s the b e s t c h o i c e . " - "Past tense i s r i g h t . " b) i d e n t i f y a problem i n i t i a l l y - "I t h i n k i t i s a run-on sentence." - "But t h i s i s a t o t a l u n c l e a r p i c t u r e , you know?" - "The s p e l l i n g i s wrong." - "20 years o l d e r than S o p h i e . . . i s not good." c) respond 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 not agree." - "Money? Is not good reason." (response t o "Maybe they d i d n ' t have enough money." - "No, t h a t ' s too weak." (response t o a su g g e s t i o n g i v e n t o a w r i t e r ) - That i s not a bad t h i n g . (response t o "He expresses h i s l o v e openly.") 3. Generate A l t e r n a t i v e (GA): Includes o f f e r i n g o r i g i n a l s uggestions or o p i n i o n s based on a l t e r n a t i v e s p r o v i d e d i n the t e x t a t hand. F u n c t i o n s : proposing a l t e r n a t i v e s , e x p r e s s i n g o p i n i o n s recommending S t r u c t u r e : modals, c o n d i t i o n a l a) o f f e r i n g o r i g i n a l suggestions - "I t h i n k i t should be a new paragraph." - "You should add some i n f o r m a t i o n . " - "So you can use "and" t o connect the sentences." - "We can buy o i l from o t h e r p l a c e s . " - "Maybe l a t e r she can have a baby and q u i t her j o b . 128 b) o f f e r i n g o p i n i o n s based on a l t e r n a t i v e s p r o v i d e d i n the t e x t a t hand - "I t h i n k she can continue her c a r e e r . " - "Another reason f o r sea route i s ' p i p e l i n e i s expensive'." - " I f I were her I would get married w i t h Winston." 4. I d e n t i f y Purpose or Reason ( I P ) : R e f e r s t o a reason t h a t does not go beyond the p r a c t i c a l t a s k and does not r e f e r t o r u l e s or standards. Includes d e s c r i b i n g o r 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 q u e s t i o n o r statement, or c a t e g o r i z i n g advantages/disadvantages. F u n c t i o n s : g i v i n g reasons S t r u c t u r e : s u b o r d i n a t i o n a) a w r i t e r d e s c r i b e s / d e f e n d s what s/he has w r i t t e n - "I know him, t h a t ' s why I s a i d 'That was Jack a g a i n ' " - "I t e l l what she i s t h i n k i n g about." b) a group member e l a b o r a t e s a reason f o r a s k i n g a qu e s t i o n or making a statement - "I d i d the q u e s t i o n because you t e l l i n g about your u n c l e doesn't have l a n d . " c) the advantages/disadvantages o f a l t e r n a t i v e s a re c a t e g o r i z e d - "He's OK because he i s r i c h and always k i n d t o her." - "Earthquake w i l l a f f e c t the p i p e l i n e : t h i s i s a reason f o r sea r o u t e . " 5. 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 suggestion, but must r e f e r t o some background knowledge based on accepted standards 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. Fu n c t i o n s : j u s t i f y i n g o p i n i o n s , c o n c l u d i n g , p r e d i c t i n g , g e n e r a l i z i n g S t r u c t u r e : s u b o r d i n a t i o n , c o n d i t i o n a l 129 a) a c a d e m i c a l l y accepted standards o r c r i t e r i a are r e f e r r e d t o : - " I f you put t h a t i n your c o n c l u s i o n your body w i l l be too s h o r t . " - "The problem i s you need t o d e s c r i b e the pov e r t y . In our mind, we know our poverty, but i n Canada i s d i f - f e r e n t . . . we are poor, but we have house, we have...." ( c r i t e r i a t h a t the average reader needs c l e a r e r i n f o r m a t i o n i s implied) b) r u l e s are 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 ) : - "Should be a p e r i o d here. Otherwise i s run-on sentence." - "You need 'on 7 - the p r e p o s i t i o n . " - "I say 'harder 7 because I compare." c) e x p e r i e n t i a l knowledge which enables g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s or p r e d i c t i o n s t o be made i s r e f e r r e d t o : - "He i s too old...you know when they got some c h i l d r e n and the c h i l d r e n say 'My dad i s too o l d ' . " - "He had 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 . . . because the man who had many g i r l f r i e n d s b e f o r e . . . " - "So t h a t mean the p i p e l i n e w i l l f o l l o w the r i v e r and 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 the f i s h . . . " 130 EXAMPLES OF CODING R e v i s i o n R: So, now we have t o d i s c u s s t h e . . . I s the t i t l e OK? SI: T i t l e ' s OK. Drunk Man. R: Should be "A Drunk Man" or "The Drunk Man"? S3: But f i n a l l y he not drunk. S2: Because here...you t a l k . . . t h e p rocess of b e i n g drunk and the process why he got d i v o r c e , you got 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 you b e t t e r f i n d a b e t t e r 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 , because what I l i k e t o d e s c r i b e i s the man...how he changed h i s l i f e s t y l e . S2: OK t h a t ' s why you...I mean you're t a l k i n g about ...when you say "The Drunk Man" you're t a l k i n g about drunk, r i g h t ? S3: But f i n a l l y he not drunk. R: But when I s t a r t e d the s t o r y he was drunk. S2: ...about what time...about 3 years? Before t h a t he wasn't drunk, and a f t e r t h a t he q u i t . R: That'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 p a r t . When he was drunk, r i g h t ? And how he q u i t from the drunk man t o the normal people. S2: I don't know...for me "The Drunk Man" i s not q u i t e s u i t a b l e w i t h your composition. R: OK. Give me i d e a s . S2: Because 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 being drunk...I mean...his l i f e i s not good... SI: How about "A New L i f e " ? 131 E d i t i n g R: OK, the t i t l e : "Anxious About Her Fut u r e " . Q SI: Nice t i t l e . Great. S2: Good. R: OK. I n t r o d u c t i o n : "People go t o sc h o o l because they need t o improve t h e i r knowledge or s k i l l s . " SI: Go ahead. ft R: "When they can 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 they have i n t e r e s t e d in"...no wait, wait a minute...wrong word — WW. Q.f\ S2: Oh. "and t h a t they are i n t e r e s t e d i n " . R: " i n t e r e s t e d i n " ? S3: "they have i n t e r e s t e d " S2: No...just, no "have", "they are i n t e r e s t e d i n " (̂ /\ R: No "have", take i t out. S2: "They are i n t e r e s t e d i n " . R: OK. S3: Yeah, good. R: "So i s Janet, my f r i e n d . Today she..." |£J^ S2: How come "So i s Janet"? SI: So i s Janet. Go ahead. R: I mean, you go t o sc h o o l , you 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 A c t i v i t y (Sophie's Dilemma) from React I n t e r a c t - ESL Text SI: OK. T h i s one f i r s t . Give reasons. S2: Why Sophie should marry Derek? S3: Should marry? SI: Are you t h i n k i n g you are good person f o r Sophie? S3: No, he i s not good person f o r Sophie. SI: How come? Give me a reason. S3: He has two q u a l i t i e s . He express h i s l o v e openly 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 . But he has many mistakes and I t h i n k she's not going t o get married him. SI: What k i n d of mistakes? S3: What k i n d of mistakes? He has many g i r l f r i e n d s . S2: No, i t say i n the p a s t . . . SI: That's not a mistake. S3: But he had a l o t . . . b u t he w i l l c o n t i n u e . SI: How do you know? S2: I t say i n the pa s t . S3: Because the man who had a l o t o f g i r l f r i e n d s b e f o r e . . . S2: No n o . . . i s j u s t . . . S3: He's ambitious a n d . . . e g o i s t i c S4: Yeah, t h i s i s not good p o i n t . S3: I s not good p o i n t . . . s h e w i l l be mad. SI: So t h i s guy i s not good person because... S2: My o p i n i o n i s d i f f e r e n t . He take h e r . . . t o p l a c e when he can get f r e e t i c k e t s . I t means he cheap. Why i f he l o v e her why don't he buy the t i c k e t and i n v i t i n g her i n s t e a d o f get f r e e t i c k e t ? "Academic" Problem S o l v i n g A c t i v i t y (Should "Zanaland" b u i l t a p i p e l i n e o r use a sea route t o t r a n s p o r t o i l ? ) - 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 the reason o f sea r o u t e . . . SI: No, n o . . . i t s f o r the p i p e l i n e . S2: No...the sea route. S3: Earthquake w i l l a f f e c t the p i p e l i n e . SI: Yeah. S2: So t h a t i s the reason f o r b u i l d the sea rout e . S3: Use the sea route, yeah. S4: P i p e l i n e is...what's p i p e l i n e ? S2: The p i p e l i n e . . . i t make l i k e a l i n e , l o n g l i n e . SI: You ever see water under the ground? S3: T r a n s p o r t t h e . . . o i l . S4: Oh I see. S3: Which p o i n t are you t a l k i n g about t h i s one? SI: The area...OK? S3: Oh OK. S2: So the oth e r one...ocean c u r r e n t s and wind a l o n g many p a r t s of the coas t l i n e are on shore. That's the reason f o r the p i p e l i n e . SI: No no. How about the sea...the sea route?

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 6 22
United States 3 0
Japan 2 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 6 0
Tokyo 2 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Redmond 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items