In:Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies
Edited by Wataru Suzuki and Neomy Storch
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 55] 2020
► pp. 219–240
Chapter 10L2 learning and the frequency and quality of written
languaging
Published online: 14 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.10ish
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.10ish
Abstract
The study investigated the effects of
written languaging (WL) on second language (L2) learning and
the extent to which the frequency and quality of WL are
related to L2 development. It employed a
pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design, with participants
assigned to a +WL, −WL and control group. The treatment
involved the completion of an individual written dictogloss
task, after which the +WL had the opportunity to engage in
WL. The −WL only did the task. We found a beneficial impact
of WL on L2 development overall, and positive links between
L2 learning and the frequency and quality of WL.
Keywords: languaging, writing, noticing, dictogloss
Article outline
- Introduction
- Background
- Theoretical framework
- Previous research findings
- Method
- Design
- Participants
- Linguistic target
- Assessment tasks and scoring
- Essay tests
- Grammar tests
- Grammar production tests
- Grammar recognition tests
- Treatment task and procedure
- Coding of T-WLEs
- Questionnaires
- Statistical analyses
- Results
- Effects of WL on L2 Learning (RQ1)
- Frequency of T-WLEs and L2 learning (RQ2)
- Quality of T-WLEs and L2 learning (RQ3)
- Correlation between the frequency and quality of T-WLEs (RQ4)
- Discussion
- Effects of WL on L2 development (RQ1)
- Frequency of T-WLEs and L2 Learning (RQ2)
- Quality of T-WLEs and L2 learning (RQ3)
- Correlation between the frequency and quality of WLEs (RQ4)
- Limitations and future directions
- Conclusion
References
References (32)
Aizawa, K., Ishikawa, S., & Murata, T. (2015). JACET 8000
eitango [JACET 8000 English
vocabulary]. Tokyo: Kirihara Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense
and aspect in second language acquisition: Form,
meaning, and
use. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The
grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s
course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining
expository texts: The dual processes of generating
inferences and repairing mental
models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances
in instructional
psychology (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations:
How students study and use examples in learning to
solve
problems. Cognitive
Science, 13(2), 145–182.
Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. -H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting
self-explanations improves
understanding. Cognitive
Science, 18(3), 439–477.
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels
of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of
Verbal Learning & Verbal
Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill
acquisition
theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition: An
introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ishikawa, M. (2018). Written
languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and L2
grammar
learning. System, 74, 50–61.
Ishikawa, M., & Suzuki, W. (2016). The
effect of written languaging on learning the
hypothetical conditional in
English. System, 58, 97–111.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does
output promote noticing in second language
acquisition? TESOL
Quarterly, 34(2), 239–278. [URL]
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using
collaborative language production tasks to promote
students’ language
awareness. Language
Awareness, 3(2), 73–93.
Luria, A. R. (1999). Speech
development and the formation of mental
processes. In P. Lloyd & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev
Vygotsky: Critical assessments, Volume II. Thought
and
language (pp. 84–122). London: Taylor & Francis.
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing
to learn the language: issues in theory and
research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write
and writing-to-learn in an additional
language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pica, T. (1983). Methods
of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the
interpretation of second language
data. Studies in
Second Language
Acquisition, 6(1), 69–78.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How
big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2
research. Language
Learning, 64(4), 878–912.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring
the role of noticing in a three-stage second
language writing
task. Journal of
Second Language
Writing, 10(4), 277–303.
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The
effects of task complexity and input frequency on
the acquisition of the past counterfactual
construction through
recasts. Language
Learning, 64(3), 615–650.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and second language
instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic
studies of
self-explanations. In N. Garnott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment:
Transition processes in development and
learning (pp. 31–58). New York, NJ: Cambridge University Press.
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The
generation effect: Delineation of a
phenomenon. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning &
Memory, 4(6), 592–604.
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk
in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and
implications for language
development. Language
Awareness, 17(2), 95–114.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written
languaging, direct correction, and second language
writing
revision. Language
Learning, 62(4), 1110–1133.
(2016). The
effects of quality of written languaging on second
language
learning. Writing and
Pedagogy, 8(3), 461-482.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus
on form through conscious
reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus
on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2005). The
output hypothesis: Theory and
research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and
learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(2006). Languaging,
agency and collaboration in advanced second language
proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced
language learning: The contribution of Halliday and
Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems
in output and the cognitive processes they generate:
A step towards second language
learning. Applied
Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging:
University students learn the grammatical concepts
in French. The Modern
Language
Journal, 93(1), 5–29.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Blake, John & Maxim Mozgovoy
Hsu, Hsiu-Chen
Obanos-Gil, María Puy & Izaskun Villarreal
Ishikawa, Masako & Andrea Révész
2024. Written languaging, language aptitude, and L2 learning through dictogloss tasks. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 140 ff.
Ishikawa, Masako & Wataru Suzuki
Peng, Carrie Xin, Neomy Storch & Ute Knoch
Suzuki, Wataru, Masako Ishikawa & Neomy Storch
2023. Verbally mediated data. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 123 ff.
Megawati, Fika, A. Effendi Kadarisman & Sheila Agustina
Yamashita, Taichi
2022. The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 58 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
