Building a Model in Researching Strategy Use in the Process of Writing English as a Second Language: A Cognitive Approach
Shih-Chieh Chien
University of Cambridge
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference, University of Warwick, 6 September 2006
Abstract
This paper is from a cognitive approach to explore strategies in the process of writing English as a second language. It is evident in research that is being conducted on various aspects of cognitive and metacognitive writing strategy use in L1 (e.g. Emig, 1971; Flower and Hayes, 1981; Hayes, 1996). Despite this increase in interest in writing and a considerable amount of work on models of how people write in L1, there have been relatively few research developed of the role of writing in L2. To determine the writing strategy use, 6 Chinese EFL students at a university participated in this study. It was mainly explored through the following question: What strategies do students use in completing English writing? In order to address this question, the structure of the writing is revealed by the think-aloud protocol analysis, in which students attempt to document the processes of thinking about writing--asking student writers to think aloud while writing and then analyzing the student writers’ writing strategies that go on inside the their head. The results showed which strategies the students employed in their cognitive activities. The findings hold important implications for researching L2 writing strategy use and L2 training in writing.
Keywords: Strategy use; Cognitive approach; Cognitive and metacognitive; EFL; L1/L2
1. Introduction
Educational psychology is the branch of education and psychology focused on the development of effective teaching techniques and the assessment of learners’ aptitudes and progress (Conner, 2001). Educational psychologists have been trying to understand the factors that underpin students’ success and failure in different educational domains for many years. One psychological function that has been found to play an important role in educational achievement is metacognition in 'working memory', the processes involved in cognitive functions as self-regulation in executive control (Pickering and Phye, 2005). Executive control is a monitoring device that enables individuals to know about their own cognitive activity and to manage it effectively (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1982). This study aims to investigate Chinese students’ cognitive/metacognitive strategies in the process of writing in English in monitoring their strategy use in working memory during writing. It is based on the assumption that only by studying the students’ writing process can we begin to design and evaluate the appropriateness of teaching students writing process methods and approaches. A discussion in teaching students the English writing process would be incomplete without first researching students’ English writing process.
2. Research Relevant to Metacognition in Cognitive Theory
2.1 Definition of Cognitive/Metacognitive Strategies
Metacognitive strategies may be shown in the form of cognitive strategies and appear to overlap with cognitive strategies. Flavell (1979) himself acknowledges that metacognitive strategies may not be different from cognitive strategies. The distinction lies in how the information is used. Roberts & Erdos (1993) state that cognitive strategies are used to help an individual achieve a particular goal (e.g., understanding a text) while metacognitive strategies are used to ensure that the goal has been reached (e.g., quizzing oneself to evaluate one's understanding of that text). Hacker (as cited from Hacker, Dunlosky, Graesser, 1998) suggests that cognitive strategies are invoked to make progress towards goals while metacognitive strategies are invoked to monitor the progress of cognitive strategies. Jonassen (1988) asserts that the distinction lies in that when these metacognitive strategies serve as cognitive strategies, their function is to process information while as metacognitive strategies, their function is to monitor rather than to produce it. As stated by Butterfield, Albertson and Johnston (in press), a distinction that can be made between cognition and metacognition is that the former involves strategies for using that knowledge to solve problems, whereas the latter concerns monitoring, controlling and understanding one’s strategies.
2.2 Cognitive Theory of the Writing Processes/Strategies[1] in L1: Flower and Hayes Composing Process Model
Figure 2.1
Flower and Hayes Composing Processes Model (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Hayes, 1996)
Task EnvironmentWriting Assignment / Text Produced So Far
Writer’s Long Term Memory
Knowledge of Discourse
Knowledge of Topic / / Reviewing
Reading
Editing
Planning
Generating
Organizing
Goal Setting
/ / Translating
Monitoring
Three Main Components in Cognitive Writing Processes/Strategies:
According to Flower and Hayes (1980, 1981), Flower (1984) and Hayes (1996), writing consists of three main cognitive processes/strategies: planning, translating and reviewing. The detailed three main phases in the process are illustrated as follows.
Planning
Planning is divided into three sub-strategies: generating ideas, organizing, and goal-setting. According to the Flower and Hayes model, generating ideas consist of retrieving relevant information from the task environment and long-term memory, which is a storehouse of knowledge about discourse and topic. Organizing entails selecting the material retrieved by the generating process and organizing them into writing.The other sub-strategy of planning is goal setting. In this sub-strategy, some materials from the generating process are criteria that are used to judge the text in terms of meeting the goal specified.
Composing (Translating)
In the Flower and Hayes writing model, the second part of the writing process, the act of composing referred to as “translating,” is when writers actually put their ideas into visible language, an activity through which the writer transforms the ideas from a linear or hierarchic plan into sentences (Flower and Hayes, 1981). It involves putting ideas into language (text generation) and then into written words (transcription) to build cohesive and coherent text (Berninger et al., 1994, 1997, 1998).
Reviewing
Reading and editing are the sub-strategies of reviewing. In these sub-strategies, the writer examines any material written with the goal of correcting anything that would prevent the text from meeting the established goals. This includes correcting grammatical errors and altering the contents of the writing. Reviewing is a conscious process in which writers choose to read and examine what they have written either as a springboard to further translating or with an eye to systematically evaluating and/or revising the text (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Hayes, 1996).
Monitoring
According to Flower and Hayes (1981), Flower (1984) and Hayes (1996), monitoring the writing process well is the ability to think about thinking and to continuously coordinate and examine the mental manipulation in sustaining and shifting the focus of attention among sub-processes in order to ensure the writing progress and quality. This process is referred to as "executive control" (Garner, 1994, p. 715).
2.3 The Use of the Think-Aloud Protocol in Researching Strategies in Working Memory in the Writing Process
Research on the composing processes of students, particularly the think-aloud protocol analysis, is based upon the case-study methodology from cognitive psychology. Emig’s The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders study provides the general case-study model followed by many researchers of student composing processes since 1971. The method of research is a sequential record of a subject’s behavior while actively engaged in performing a task, taping their utterances[2] while they are in the process of composing (when they have been asked to “compose aloud”). In later studies in the 1980s, Flower and Hayes’ think-aloud protocols included a transcript of a tape recording made by writers instructed to verbalize their thinking process as they write, as well as all written material the writer produced. They became even more sure of the efficacy of think-aloud protocol analysis in 1981, in which they pare their definition of protocol down to the transcript of the taped composing session itself, the transcript becoming what they call a “think aloud protocol.” According to Flower and Hayes (1981), think aloud protocols capture a detailed record of what is going on in the writer’s mind during the act of composing itself.
2.3.1 Advantages of Using the Think-Aloud Protocol to Investigate Strategies in Working Memory in the Writing Process
The very small time delay from processing has made researchers think that the think-aloud protocol allows direct access to people’s mental operations during cognitive activities and thereby providing an authentic description of the contents in their working memory. Ericsson and Simon (1993) state that the “concurrent report of contents of working memory are often valid…As time passes from the original cognition, the validity of recollections decreases” (p. 7). Kavale and Schreiner (1979) consider the think-aloud protocol analysis as superior to the retrospective method in that it offers a more positive and direct way of identifying the processes used by the subjects. In addition to the immediacy of reporting, the think-aloud protocol provides an accurate report of the mental process because it requires the participants to report their behaviors without analyzing and theorizing. Ericsson and Simon (1980) state that the think-aloud method unlike the other techniques for gathering verbal data, there are no interruptions or suggestive questions as the subjects are encouraged to give a concurrent account of their thoughts and to avoid interpretation or explanation of what they are doing, they just have to concentrate on the task. When the subjects focus on and articulate the information that is already available to them without describing and theorizing about the information, the think-aloud will not change the course and structure of the cognitive process.
3. Research Method
3.1 Research Question
From a cognitive approach, what cognitive/metacognitive strategies do students use in completing English writing?
3.2 Research Design
In order to answer the research questions, I used a multiple case study[3] to investigate students’ ability in monitoring their strategy use in their working memory in the English writing process by means of the think-aloud protocol. Six participants were recruited. They were all Chinese students at the master’s level enrolling in research in second language education at the University of Cambridge. In this study, all of them wrote the same essay topic.
3.3 Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected through students’ concurrent think-aloud protocols during writing and students’ think-aloud writings. In the practice think-aloud writing session, students were instructed to verbalize whatever came into their minds as they wrote, whether the thought was in English, Chinese or in English/Chinese. When they mastered this procedure, they were asked to think aloud in the actual writing session. They performed a think-aloud writing task alone in a quiet room in 40 minutes, in the presence of the researcher, in case some students sometimes may forget to think aloud. The researcher remained unobtrusively in the background and did not intervene, except to prompt students by saying “keep talking” if s/he remained silent. Their writing processes were videotaped. The recorded think-aloud protocols produced by students were then fully transcribed word-for-word into scripts so that the utterance of each strategy could be coded. The detailed data collection procedures are further illustrated as follows.
1. The Practice Think-Aloud Writing Session
Before the students start writing, they were first introduced by the researcher to the think-aloud procedure based on the principle given by Hayes and Flower (1983). If the students failed to verbalize their mental processes[4], there were always verbal signals (“keep talking”) given by the researcher by prompting students to think aloud. After the students were explained the principle in doing the think-aloud writing mentioned above, they were encouraged to raise questions and concerns about the procedure. Then they had around 20 minutes[5] to practice think-aloud on a given topic on the computer as follows.
“Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better for children to grow up in the countryside than in a big city. Use specific reasons and details to support your argument.”
2. The Actual Think-Aloud Writing Session
When the students were in the actual writing session, they composed their own think-aloud writings on the computer in 40 minutes[6] and the whole writing process were videotaped, with the camera focused specifically on the screen. The students were guided by the following instruction in the writing prompt as follows:
“Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? With the help of technology, people nowadays can gain more information and learn it more quickly. Use specific reasons and details to support your argument.”
The topic was given right after the writing task begins. When the students composed aloud, no interruption was made. If the students failed to think aloud, they were reminded by the researcher with verbal signals (“keep talking”) by prompting students to think aloud.
Data Gathering
1. Transcripts of Think-Aloud Protocols
All the think-aloud protocols in students’ writing sessions were collected and fully transcribed for the analysis (see Appendix A).
2. Students’ Finished Think-aloud Writings
Students’ finished think-aloud writings were collected for reference.
4. Results
4.1 The Think-Aloud Protocol:
The Problem of the Flower–Hayes model for Data Analysis: The Need to Develop a Reliable and Valid Coding Scheme for the Think-Aloud Protocol
When I adopted the Flower–Hayes coding system for the analysis of the think-aloud data produced by the students in this study, I found the categories were problematic and could not accommodate all the utterances in cognitive writing processes/strategies. In order to solve this problem and to code the think-aloud data systematically, one major issue in analyzing how the students monitored their strategy use was to develop a reliable and valid scheme which was able to label all utterances in cognitive writing processes/strategies.
The major procedures for analyzing the think-aloud protocol data included transcribing the transcripts fully, segmenting and coding utterances of strategies. To start with, the videotapes that documented the students’ writing processes/strategies were transcribed verbatim in pages. The transcribed protocols then were segmented by watching videos. The segmenting procedure was based on the identified points where the students moved from one strategy to another. For instance, when a student progressed from “generating the pretext (GP)” to “generating the text (G),” the utterances were parsed into two units (strategies): “They don’t have to go (GP) they don’t have to go (G).” By the same token, when a student progressed from “reading the sentence part (RP)” to “generating the text (G),” the utterances were parsed into two units (strategies): “without having to compete (RP) and wait a long time (G).” When the coding unit was found unsatisfactory, it was modified by adding new strategies. Other strategies were also deleted, combined and separated if they were found unsatisfactory. Each segmented unit was coded according to the components I discovered in my study. In the planning process, I found the students did not use the strategy of organizing as stated by Flower and Hayes. Instead, they exerted the strategy of formulating the position by expressing the intention to take the position in whether to agree/disagree to the writing topic, interpreting the writing task by responding to the prompt and defining the task, memory search for ideas, memory search for languages, generating ideas, and giving general comments (see the next part for the further explanation of each term). I kept the goal setting strategy based on the Flower and Hayes model as I found most of the student writers made plans for what to do and/or what to write about next. In addition, in the translating process, the component was blank in the Flower and Hayes model. Based upon my findings, the translating process was divided into two sub-strategies, generating pretext and generating texts. Finally, in the Flower and Hayes model, the reviewing process was divided into reading and editing sub-strategies. These two sub-strategies were also problematic. I found the student writers did not only read and edit, but also evaluate, revise and give general comments.