Title

PAGE 2

M14 ENL

Research ProposalStudent ID Number: 5287754ContentsProject title.3

Aims....3

Objectives..3

Relevance to Academic Field/ Draft literature review of relevant literature4

Methodology and Data Selection/Collection9Ethics12References..14Appendices..17Title The effectiveness and triggering function of reformulation used as a prospective teaching strategy to stimulate noticing of linguistic shortcomings in Romanians second language writing and an improvement in the writing skills.AimsThe main aims of this research are to examine the function and effectiveness of noticing in creating opportunities for deeper feedback on second language (L2) writing rather than feedback in the form of mere correction of surface-level errors and to investigate the usefulness and practicality of reformulation used as a teaching tool to activate noticing in L2 learners, who are Romanian native speakers and to provide well-balanced feedback between form and function-focused needs. ObjectivesThis research will take into account three central objectives:

To investigate if a reformulation model can lead to noticing and if such a model can be employed as a teaching resource to provide deeper feedback on L2 composing.To examine how the participants draw a comparison between their written output and a reformulated version done by a native speakerTo assess the teaching implications of the findings.

Relevance to Academic Field/ Draft literature review of relevant literatureThe central topic of this research study is concerned with the enhancement of English writing skills and it bears relevance to the Romanian learning context because most English teachers in this country do not spend a lot of time on practicing this productive skill with the learners. In fact, writing is mostly approaches as a homework task, thus reducing the chances for learners to be provided with suitable and personalized feedback.In general, the majority of Romanian learners have very good language skills, but when it comes to writing they experience formal, stylistic, discourse and lexical shortcomings which are similar to the ones experienced by other non-native speakers. Klapper (2006: 305) asserts that regardless of the learners mother tongue, the act of writing in a second language represents the most challenging or demanding language skill with few students capable of producing near-native prose.

Research conducted in cognitive psychology disclosed that attention represents an indispensable condition that facilitates learning. Lai, Fei and Roots (2008: 70) share this view and maintain that noticing constitutes a valuable cognitive model and of crucial importance to second language acquisition (SLA). This present research study will take into consideration Schmidts Noticing Hypothesis (1990), which will be viewed as a prerequisite condition to second language (L2) development. According to Schmidt (2010: 721-722), the L2 learner gets exposed to particular linguistic features associated with the input and such features depend upon noticing along with mental processing effort in order to convert input into intake. Furthermore, Schmidt claims that the input to which the Ls learner is exposed is difficult to turn into intake if it is not deliberately or consciously noticed. This research study will also consider and investigate the noticing effect or function within Swains Output Hypothesis (1985). Adams (2003: 349) maintains that the cognitive process of noticing takes place or is activated when learners realize that they experience some linguistic shortcomings in communicating a specific meaning while generating L2 output. Moreover, Adams suggests that a reformulation model can be used as a form of feedback which prompts learners to notice the dissimilarities between nativelike forms and their original output (2003: 350). In addition, the research study will examine both theoretically and practically the function of noticing in output-writing tasks as a cognitive resource that facilitates a more enhanced use of target-like forms by the Romanian participants.Schmidt (2010: 722) asserts that the noticing ability involved in learning a foreign language (FL) differs from learner to learner, being influenced by ones skill level. Gladday (2012: 35) describes the notion of skill level as the learners processing capability to routinize previously met structures and promptness to begin noticing new structures in the input that is provided. Skehan (1998: 50) also claims that the noticing ability varies from one learner to another and that some learners are better input processors. Drnyei and Skehan (2003: 597) believe that the distinct pace or rhythm of analytical processing and noticing is influenced by individual learning differences like aptitude and learner strategies. The research study will also tackle the relationship between noticing and reformulation as a type of feedback which can help Romanian teachers improve the writing skills of their learners. Zhang (1995: 210) claims that feedback provided by teachers is highly necessary because learners erroneous hypotheses about language trigger the occurrence of errors in their written texts. In addition to this, providing feedback on writing does not necessarily mean that this will be effective and that learners will not make the same errors in the next written assignment. Lzaro Ibarrola (2009: 195) asserts that research on traditional feedback and on the overall manner in which teachers provide corrections showed that such traditional feedback is inaccurate because it places emphasis only on what is negative, it does not actively involve the learner and it also provides an imbalanced consideration between form, meaning and style. Unsuitable and insensitive feedback that lacks a varied and balanced evaluation in terms of content, style and form is very common in the Romanian educational system and teachers rarely take into account the individual differences when facilitating feedback. The main concern is that the type of feedback used in this setting does not help learners observe their errors or their gap between IL and TL. As a result, this study promotes the use of a reformulation model to investigate if such a model can raise learners awareness of this gap and if it can contribute to a development of writing skills.Hanaoka (2007: 460) defines reformulation as a feedback technique which relies on rewriting an L2 learners text. The content and the ideas written by the participants are kept, but aspects like cohesion, morphological errors, register, illogical sequencing and vocabulary ambiguity are corrected and reformulated by the native speaker. Rahim and Riasati (2011: 1325) suggest that implementing a reformulation model in the classroom has more advantages than other types of feedback. One major advantage is that a reformulated text provides learners with relevant and appropriate target structures for that particular context. In addition to this, Geist (2013: 146) maintains that another beneficial effect of a reformulated model is that it ensures a well-balanced consideration between form and function. In her view, this type of feedback provides the learners with opportunities to notice and to self-correct. Studies on noticing and reformulation like the ones done by Qi and Lapkin (2001), Swain and Lapkin (2002), Tocalli-Beller and Swain (2005) and Hanaoka and Izumi (2012) showed that implementing reformulated writing in the L2 classroom can significantly contribute to raising learners awareness of differences between their interlanguage (IL) and TL and that conscious noticing can lead IL development.Methodology

ParticipantsThe research study will involve four adult Romanian-speaking English-as-a second language (L2) and one native speaker. The native speaker will be a trained university-level EFL teacher from Coventry University or a student who is a native speaker. The 4 Romanian participants will be selected by taking into consideration one crucial factor which is relevant to the results of this research i.e., little exposure to the British academic context. Thus, the participants will be undergraduate students who finished their first year of study. These participants study and live for the first time in the UK and are totally immersed in the target-language context.Data collection and procedure

The four Romanian participants will get a picture prompt and they will have to write a narrative based on what they observe. The nature of the picture prompt can be described as open-ended with no verbal data. According to Qi and Lapkin (2001: 285), such factors bear relevance to the results because the Romanian participants will have control over the content of the story and will use the TL to generate only written output.The Romanian participants will be involved in a second language writing task which will be separated into two central stages. Stage 1 is entitled the Composition stage in which the participants will need to write a story based on the visuals in the picture prompt. The word-limit for this story is 300 words. Stage 2 is called the Comparison stage and involves having the Romanian participants draw a comparison between their original written drafts and 4 reformulated versions produced by the native participant. The selection of 4 reformulated versions is suitable because the content may vary from one participant to another. In the last part of stage 2, the Romanians will be given the original drafts and the reformulated versions and they will be asked to draw a comparison between them by thinking aloud. The Romanians will be trained to generate think-aloud protocols before the interview in which they will have to compare both versions. Each participant will be showed how to think out loud in the target language because they will have to do it at the end of stage 2. In the comparison stage, the participants will have to think aloud and also to underline items that they have noticed in the reformulated textsData recording and analysis The researcher will use think-aloud protocols to investigate how the participants involved in this study notice language related problems in their writing in stage 2 in the form of language related episodes (LREs). As a result, these think-aloud protocols will be separated into segments of LREs and will be translated and transcribed by the researcher. Swain and Lapkin (2002: 292) claim that LREs are described as measurement tools to look into how the Romanian participants reflect on language and how they make particular lexical, grammar and discourse choices. Moreover, Amirkhiz et al. (2013) asserts that such segments of dialogue or LREs are employed to get the participants to talk about the language they produced, to correct and reflect on the use of L2.In this research project, LREs represent particular protocol segments which show how participants notice specific language-related problems while drawing a comparison between the original drafts and the reformulated version (s). These LREs will also disclose the participants agreement or disagreement with the written reformulation. The researcher will use sound recording for the think-aloud protocols and the comparison stage and the LREs will be translated and transcribed and divided into three categories i.e., lexical, form and discourse.Research MethodsThis research is a partial replica of an experiment done by Qi and Lapkin (2001) to examine the impact of noticing in a three-stage L2 writing task and involved two Mandarin adult speakers. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods will be used to investigate the data. The study will implement quantitative data because it will make use of numbers and a priori categorization. Drnyei (2007: 32) maintains that numbers are an important feature associated with quantitative research. The researcher will include tables and will show the number of LREs generated in the second stage and the linguistic shortcomings pinpointed by the Romanian participants. According to Drnyei (2007: 32-33), numbers presented without contextual backing can be described as meaningless unless we specify exactly the category that we use the specific number for. Numbers will be included in the tables and will refer to the three categories into which the language-related episodes will be separated i.e., lexical, form and discourse.

The qualitative methods used in this research project will be associated with insider meaning and interpretive analysis (Drnyei 2007: 38). The research will examine the noticing experience undergone by the Romanian participants during the comparison interview and their identification of problems concerning the correction of particular linguistic forms. The data which will be obtained may also be explored from the researchers subjective interpretation. This interpretation refers to the manner in which the Romanians verbalize their ideas or search for an appropriate match between ideational content generated in thought and a linguistically appropriate form available in memory (Qi and Lapkin 2001: 290).Ethics considerations

This research will involve human participants, will use primary data and will be categorized as being of medium to high risk. The study will have to be ethically approved and will include a Participant Information Sheet, a Consent Statement, an Interview Script and a Health and Safety form which will be uploaded to Coventry Universitys ethics webpage (Coventry University Ethics 2014).

Addressing the feedback

The topic selected for this research study relies on the hunch that non-native learners who come in contact with a reformulated model produced by a native speaker will be capable of noticing some vocabulary and discourse shortcomings in their interlanguage. It aims to validate the belief that these Romanians will notice the mismatch or gap between what they can produce and what they need to produce, as well as between what they produce and what target language speakers produce (Schmidt 2001 cited in Van Beuningen 2010: 5).

The original drafts written by the Romanian participants will be photocopied and reformulated by the native speaker, a trained EFL teacher from Coventry University, the Department of English and Languages. For the time being, the reformulated versions will be typed on the same page with the original drafts.

This research will involve two meetings with the participants and the most suitable Romanian participants are the ones who will stay in Coventry over the summer in order to have enough time to process the ethical instruments. The variables which will be taken into account are disclosed in the section called Participants.Reference List

Adams, R. (2003) L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research 7 (3), 347-376

Amirkhiz, S.Y.Y., Bakar, K.A., Samad, A.A., Baki, R., and Mahmoudi, L. (2013) EFL/ESL Learners Language Related Episodes (LREs) during Performing Collaborative Writing Tasks. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4 (3), 473-479

Coventry University Ethics available from https://ethics.coventry.ac.uk/ [8 April 2014]

Drnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University PressDrnyei, Z., and Skehan, P. (2003) Individual differences in second language learning. in The handbook of second language acquisition. ed. by Doughty, C.J., and Long, M.H. Oxford: Blackwell, 589-630

Geist, M. (2013) Noticing in L2 writing: Problem-solving strategies and individual differences. Unpublished dissertation. Mnchen: Ludwig-Maximilians UniversityGladday, A.E. (2012) Students uptake of corrective feedback. Journal of Educational and Social Research 2 (7), 31-39

Hanaoka, O., and Izumi, S. (2012) Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, 332-347

Hanaoka, O. (2007) Output, noticing and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research 11 (4), 459-479

Klapper, J. (2006) Understanding and developing good practice: Language teaching in higher education. London: CILT

Lai, C., Fei, F., and Roots, R. (2008) The Contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal 26 (1), 70-90

Lzaro-Ibarrola, A. (2009) Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. RESLA 22, 189-215

Qi, D.S., and Lapkin, S. (2001) Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 277-303

Rahim, F., and Riasati, M.J. (2011) The Effect of Reformulation on Noticing and Subsequent Writing Development. World Applied Sciences Journal 13 (6), 1324-1328

Schmidt, R. (2010) Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. in Proceedings of CLASIC. ed by Chan, W.M., Chi, S., Cin, K.N., Istanto, J., Nagami, M.J., Sew, W., Suthiwan, T., and Walker, I. Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies, 721-737

Skehan, P. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (2002) Talking it through: two French immersion learners response to reformulation. International Journal of Education Research 3-4, 285-304

Tocalli-Beller, A., and Swain, M. (2005) Reformulation: the cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (1), 5-28

Van Beuningen, C. (2010) Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights and Future Directions. International Journal of English Studies 10 (2), 1-27Zhang, S. (1995) Reexamining the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (3), 209-222

Appendix 1TimelineSTEPSTASKSTo be completed by:

STEP 1Provisional Project Plan Presentation20th March 2014

STEP 2Provisional Presentation Script submission14th April 2014

STEP 3Meeting to receive feedback and discuss improvementsBeginning of May 2014

STEP 4First meeting with supervisorMay 2014

STEP 5Submission of coursework 27th May 2014

STEP 6Carry on literature research on the topicMay 2014

STEP 7Second meeting with supervisor to discuss ethicsMay 2014

STEP 8Meeting with the participants and provide training for the think-aloud protocolsMay 2014

STEP 9Conduct the three-stage researchJune 2014

STEP 10Analysing dataJune 2014

STEP 11Write literature draft and receive feedbackJune 2014

STEP 12Third meeting with supervisorJune 2014

STEP 13Write methodology chapter and receive feedbackJuly 2014

STEP 14Write chapter interpreting the analysis and receive feedbackJuly 2014

STEP 15Fourth meeting with supervisorJuly 2014

STEP 16Write introduction and conclusionAugust 2014

STEP 17Proofread and check referencesAugust 2014

STEP 18Submit for binding18th August 2014

Appendix 2Provisional proposed structure:

Cover SheetPrefaceAcknowledgementsAbstract

Table of Contents

Glossary and List of abbreviations

Introduction chapterChapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Data analysis and methodologyChapter 4: Results

Chapter 5: Discussion of Results and teaching implications associated with the Romanian context

Conclusion

References

Appendices

Ethics forms

Appendix 3

Participant Information Sheet

COVENTRY UNIVERSITYFACULTY OF BUSINESS, ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY

Department of English and LanguagesPrincipal Investigator: Andreea-Raluca Moise, Coventry UniversityProject titleThe effectiveness and triggering function of reformulation used as a prospective teaching strategy to stimulate noticing of linguistic shortcomings in Romanians second language writing and an improvement in the writing skills.

What is the objective of the project?The objective is to collect data and see if native Romanian speakers can improve their English writing skills by using a model written by an English speaker given as feedback.

Why have I been approached and what does participation involve? For the purposes of this study which consists of two stages we need to recruit 4 native Romanian speakers. We will provide you with a picture and each participant will have to write a story of about 300 words (stage 1). Your compositions will be reformulated by a native speaker studying at Coventry University. In the second stage each participant will be audio recorded while comparing aloud the original compositions with the ones reformulated by the native speaker. The interview will also include some questions formulated by the researcher. The interview will be done in Romanian and the researcher will transcribe the data collected in English.Do I have to take part?

Participation is voluntary and you can withdraw at any time during the stages. You can withdraw by contacting us by email. Participant withdrawal means that your data will be destroyed and not used in the project. There are no consequences if you no longer wish to participate.What are the possible risks or discomforts?

The study will not cause any discomforts, but participants can withdraw at any stage if they are not comfortable with being audio-recorded.

What are the possible benefits of taking part?You will contribute towards the research project which may positively influence language learning and teaching in Romania in the future. The results will be available to you on request.What if something goes wrong?If you feel you do not want to take part anymore, you can withdraw at any time. All you need to do is to contact the investigators using the email addresses provided below. If you decide to withdraw, your data will be destroyed and not included in the project.

Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential?Yes. Only the investigators will have access to the data. All the consent forms will be stored in a secure location and your data will be identified by your participant reference number.

What will happen to the results of the research study?The data collected from the research study will be kept anonymous and confidential. All information will only be processed by the main investigators.Who is organizing and funding the research?The research is organized and conducted by Andreea-Raluca Moise, a post-graduate student, doing a Master in English Language Teaching, as part of the Faculty of Business, Environment and Society (BES) within Coventry University. This research is not externally funded.

How do I sign up?

You will be given a consent form to sign and date. Please return this to the principal investigator. Due to the time required transcribing the data, only 4 students are required. Please do not be offended if we cannot include you in the project.

Contact for additional queries

Andreea-Raluca Moise

moisea@uni.coventry.ac.ukIf you wish to discuss with somebody from the research team, please contact:

Michael Cribbaa6177@coventry.ac.ukSupervision is done by the Department of English and Languages, Coventry UniversityAppendix 4Informed Consent Form

Participant reference code:

The effectiveness and triggering function of reformulation used as a prospective teaching strategy to stimulate noticing of linguistic shortcomings in Romanians second language writing and an improvement in the writing skills.

Andreea Moise

Coventry University

Dept. of English and Languages

Priory Street

Coventry CV1 5FB

Email: moisea@uni.coventry.ac.ukPlease initial

1. I confirm that I have read and understood the participant information sheet for the above study and have had the opportunity to ask questions

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at anytime without giving a reason

3. I understand that all the information I provide will confidential

4. I agree to be recorded and for anonymous quotes to be used as part of the research project

5. I agree to take part in the research project

Name of participant:

Signature of participant:

Date:

Appendix 5

Print and audio production consent form

I, the undersigned, consent to the use of my words, images, images of my work or recordings of my voice being used within Coventry University publications or video case studies. I understand that this may be used for educational, marketing, and/or commercial purposes, and that copyright will reside with Coventry University.

I acknowledge that the quote, image or recording may also be used in, and distributed by, media pertaining to Coventry Universitys activities other than a printed publication, such as, but not limited to CD-ROM, DVD or the World Wide Web.

Copyright restrictions placed on Coventry University publications and case studies prevent content being sold or used by way of trade without the expressed permission of the University, as copyright holder. Images and recordings may not be edited, amended or re-used without permission from Dr. Michael Cribb on behalf of Coventry University. Personal details of those taking part are not made available to third parties.

Please complete the Participant details below and return the form to Andreea-Raluca Moise, the University contact;

Participants details: Coventry University contact: Andreea-Raluca MoiseName:

Title: MA Postgraduate student I require/do not require that

Department

my name is removed/retained

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

in association with images

Coventry University

and/or recordings (please

Priory Street

delete as appropriate)

Coventry

CV1 5FB

Contact details:

moisea@uni.coventry.ac.ukSignature:

Date:

Appendix 6

STUDENT RESEARCH PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENTPerson(s) undertaking project:Andreea-Raluca Moise

Project supervisor:Dr. Michael Cribb

Brief outline of project:

Outline the types of activities that will take place or items fabricated i.e. face to face interviews, public surveys, water sampling, machining vehicle parts, brazing etc.The objective is to collect data and see if native Romanian speakers can improve their English writing skills by using a model written by an English speaker given as feedback.At the first meeting, the participants will be shown a picture prompt on the basis of which they will write a narrative in approximately 300 words.

At the second meeting, the participants will draw a comparison between their narratives and a reformulated version done by a native speaker. This stage will involve think-aloud protocols because participants will think aloud while comparing and it will also involve a face-to-face interview. In this interview, the participants will be asked if they agree or disagree with the reformulated versions and provide reasons and they will also be asked which feedback method they prefer and why.

Dates of study (from to)Early June early July

Location(s) of activity:

Country and specific area.United KingdomWest Midlands

Coventry

Coventry University

Will the project involve laboratory work?

If yes, you will be required to complete separate risk assessment(s) prior to carrying out any laboratory work.Yes / No

Will the project involve workshop work?

If yes, you will be required to complete an induction and may carry out a separate risk assessment(s) prior to carrying out any workshop work.Yes / No

Will the project involve travel? (If yes, complete this section as fully as possible. The form

may require review prior to travel to add missing details) Yes / No

Contact details at destination(s):Contact details of next of kin in case of emergency:

Approximate dates of travel:

Your supervisor must have details of travel plans once confirmed.

Arrangements to maintain contact with the University:

Emergency contact information:

School/Faculty contact (Daytime): 02476

24hr University contact (Protection Service): 02476 888 555

Local healthcare/emergency services:

Has suitable travel insurance has been obtained? (Please attach a copy of certificate)Yes / No

If EU travel, has EH1C card been obtained?Yes / No

Has advice/vaccinations from GP been sought (where appropriate)?Yes / No

Are medical kits required (i.e. in countries with poor healthcare facilities)?Yes / No

Are there any warnings issued by the FCO* against travel to the area?Yes / No

Have you registered with the FCO* service LOCATE? (British nationals only)Yes / No

*FCO = http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/ PLEASE USE THE HAZARD CHECKLIST AS A GUIDE WHEN COMPLETING THIS SECTION.

HazardPrecautions to be used

Work factors:

E.g.: dealing with the public, interviewing on sensitive issues, lone working, driving, working on boats, laboratory work; biological, chemical hazards etc

Site specific factors (in the field):

E.g.: remote area, construction site, local endemic diseases, political unrest, terrorism risk etc

If travel abroad see FCO* website list any risks greater than there would be for the UK

Environmental factors (in the field):

E.g.: extremes of temperature, altitude, weather conditions, tidal conditions, cliffs, bogs, caves, mountains etc

Equipment:

E.g.: operation of machinery, use of specialist equipment, manual handling/transportation, compressed gases, etc Audio-recording

Other:

Detail any special arrangements required, i.e. permissions required, accommodation, travel, catering etc

This assessment must be reviewed before any significant project changes are made.

Assessment carried out by:

Signature:

Position:

Date:Authorisation to proceed:

Signature:

Position:

Date:

Appendix 7

Interview requirements and questions1. Please compare your version with the reformulated one. Underline words or phrases which you think are better used in the second version. Please try to compare by talking aloud about the important bits that you notice to be better formulated than in your own original draft.2. Please express your opinion about the reformulated version. Do you agree/disagree with some reformulations? Why or why not?

3. Do you prefer the traditional Romanian method of correcting essays written in English or this method (a native-like reformulated version) ? Why or why not?

M14 ENL

Research Proposal