International Journal of

Educational Research 37 (2002) 285304

Chapter 4
Talking it through: two French immersion
learners response to reformulation
Merrill Swain*, Sharon Lapkin
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St. West Toronto,
Ont., Canada M5S IV6
Abstract
This article documents the importance of collaborative dialogue as part of the process of
second language learning. The stimulus for the dialogue we discuss in this article was a
reformulation of a story written collaboratively in French by Nina and Dara, two adolescent
French immersion students. A sociocultural theoretical perspective informs the discussion of
three sustained examples of the learners talking it through as they confront and resolve
many language-related problems while comparing their story with its reformulation. A pre-
test/post-test design allows us to demonstrate the combined effects on second language
learning of the reformulation and the students reactions to it.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Second language learning; Sociocultural theory; Output; Immersion; Reformulation
1. Literature review
1.1. Talking it through
Our program of research has focused on the roles of output (speaking and writing)
in second language learning (e.g. Swain, 1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). As our
research has evolved, so has our theoretical orientation (Swain, 2000). We have
moved from viewing output solely within an information-processing framework of
learning to viewing output within a sociocultural theoretical perspective of learning.
An essential difference between these two perspectives is that the latter regards
output not only as a message to be conveyed, but as a tool in cognitive activity.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
*Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mswain@oise.utoronto.ca (M. Swain), slapkin@oise.utoronto.ca (S. Lapkin).
0883-0355/02/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5
In this sense, speaking is a cognitive activity (Lantolf & Appel, 1994), the outcome
of which is an utterance. Through speaking, thought is externalized. Externalized as
an utterance, it becomes an object. As an object it can be scrutinized, questioned,
reected upon, disagreed with, changed, or disregarded. In order to collaborate,
learners must speak to each other. Through their dialogue, they engage in making
meaning, and debate the meaning made. To make their meaning as clear, coherent
and precise as possible, learners will debate language form (morphosyntax through
to discourse and pragmatics) and lexical choice (Kinginger, 2000; Kowal & Swain,
1997; Swain & Lapkin, 2001). This talk about language (metatalk) mediates second
language learning (Lantolf, 2000; Swain, 2000). Talk supports the process of
internalization (Lantolf, 2001)the moving inwards of joint (intermental) activity
to psychological (intramental) activity (Galperin, 1967; Stetsenko & Arievitch,
1997). A detailed (micro-genetic) analysis of the way new linguistic forms and
meanings evolve leads to an understanding of how language learning occurs in
dialogue, not as a result of it (Swain, 2000).
Metatalk is language used to reect consciously on language use. It is one sort of
collaborative dialoguedialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem-solving
and knowledge-building (Swain, 2000). Although collaborative dialogue occurs in
many domains (e.g. mathematics), for our purposes collaborative dialogue relates
only to problem-solving and knowledge-building in the linguistic domain.
Vygotsky (1986) argued that what was needed for learning to occur was the
presence of a more knowledgeable person who would help the learner to move from
being able do something only with the help of that expert to being able to do it
independently. Because Vygotskys ideas have mostly been applied within develop-
mental psychology, the more knowledgeable otherthe expert in an expert/novice
pairhas typically been conceived of as an adult (e.g. parent, teacher). However in
recent years, the idea that peerpeer interaction may also foster learning has been
advanced (e.g. Tudge, 1990; Wells, 2000). This idea has been extended within
sociocultural SLA by suggesting that in peerpeer interaction, peers can be
concurrently experts and novices (Brooks & Swain, 2001; Donato, 1994).
A number of recent studies demonstrate the impact of peerpeer dialogue on
second language learning (Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002). For example,
DiCamilla and Antons (1997) analyses of the discourse of ve dyads of Spanish
second language learners collaborating on a writing assignment emphasized the
importance of co-constructed scaffolded support and guidance through peer
dialogue.
Storch (1999a, b, 2000, 2001, this issue) examined the nature of peer assistance in
pairs working together on language tasks. She identied four types of relationships
amongst pairs: collaborative; expert-novice; dominant-passive; and dominant
dominant. There were many differences in the nature of the discourse amongst the
four types of pairs, for example, who initiates questions, frequency of disagreements
and resolutions, use of pronoun we, etc. Adopting a collaborative orientation
resulted in co-construction, extension of knowledge, provision of scaffolded
assistance and language development (grammatical accuracy and new lexical
knowledge).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 286
Other research (e.g. De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Ohta, 2001; Spielman
Davidson, 2000; Tang & Tithecott, 1999; Tocalli-Beller, in press; Villamil & de
Guerrero, 1998) demonstrates the value of peerpeer dialogue on aspects of second
language learning. The opportunity to talk and discuss language and writing issues
with each other allowed the learners to consolidate and reorganize knowledge of
the L2 in structural and rhetorical aspects and to make this knowledge explicit for
each others benet (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000, p. 65).
In our research (e.g. Kowal & Swain, 1997; Swain & Lapkin, 1998), students have
worked collaboratively on a number of tasks designed to increase collaborative talk
(e.g. dictogloss and jigsaw tasks). In the research reported in this article, students
rst wrote a story collaboratively and then subsequently they compared what they
wrote with a reformulated version of it. Their collaborative efforts, mediated by their
dialogue, reveal what cognitive steps they took to be able later to use their
constructed knowledge individually.
1.2. Reformulation
Cohen (1983) dened reformulation as a technique consisting of having a native
writer of the target language rewrite the learners essay, preserving all the learners
ideas, making it sound as nativelike as possible (p. 4). Reformulation, then,
encompasses both reconstruction (Levenston, 1978) or the correction of surface
errors, and more substantive correction addressing the style and clarity of thought
(Cohen, 1982, p. 5). Thornbury (1997) appears to agree, stating that reformulation
goes beyond the surface features of the text.
Because they involve changes at all levels of a text (Allwright, Woodley, &
Allwright, 1988), reformulations usually differ in numerous ways from the learners
original texts. Learners must be encouraged to do a thorough comparison between
the reformulated version and their own original texts. Cohen (1983) found that
most students need assistance in comparing their version with the reformulated
oney these comparisons need to be purposely eye-opening and engaging (p. 19).
One way of providing such assistance is having learners talk to each other as they
work their way through the texts, identifying or noticing changes and discussing why
these changes might have been made. Brooks and Swain (2001) conducted a pilot
study involving four adult ESL learners (intermediate prociency) who wrote a story
collaboratively based on a picture prompt. The students then talked through a
reformulated version of their text, noticing and commenting on many of the changes
the reformulator had made. Next they participated in a stimulated recall session with
a researcher in which they viewed a videotape of their noticing activity and
commented further on differences between their original text and the reformulated
text. Finally, each learner individually re-wrote the original story (the re-write was
referred to as the post-test) and was interviewed.
Brooks and Swain analyzed the post-test responses (i.e. items or structures that the
learners changed as a result of this multi-stage task) in terms of four sources of
feedback: peer, reformulation, researcher and self. They demonstrated that the role
of expert is often shared between the learners; where the peer cannot provide
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 287
sufcient expertise, assistance comes from the reformulation together with the
dialogue generated by discussing the feedback. Improvements made on the post-tests
tended to be those linguistic items that had been discussed in both the noticing and
stimulated recall tasks.
Allwright et al. (1988) found that the whole-class discussion of reformulated texts
was a key component of the technique. They called for studies of whatylearners
themselves can tell us about the changes they make in their writing (p. 254) as a
result of the opportunity to study reformulations of their texts.
Sanaoui (1984) directed her adult students of French as a second language to
notice six different categories of changes: vocabulary selection, syntactic
choices, cohesive devices, discourse functions, overall organization, and stance
toward the reader. In this case, although peer discussion had preceded the writing of
their rst drafts, the reformulations were dealt with on an individual basis, with
instructions to identify signicant changes, consider how they were made and the
effects of the changes. Piper (1995) guided classroom discussions of reformulated
texts, and Thornbury (1997) used awareness-raising exercises to enhance his
students ability to notice changes between their texts and the reformulated versions
of them.
Mantello (1996), working with young adolescent learners of French as a second
language near the beginning of their intensive exposure to the target language,
reformulated students texts paying special attention to the compound past tense.
Students worked through the reformulated texts on their own, comparing the
corrected past tense verb forms to their original verbs. The stronger students noticed
changes that went beyond the target structure, a result that the researcher had not
anticipated.
Prociency differences were the focus of a case study by Qi and Lapkin (2001) in
which two adult Mandarin learners of English wrote a text in response to a picture
prompt. Each learner compared his/her text to a reformulated version of it, noticing
changes and sometimes commenting on those changes. One researcher then
interviewed the students, showing each a videotape of the noticing session and
conducting a stimulated recall session in which the students were encouraged to say
as much as possible about the changes they had noticed and why they had been
made. The researchers found that the quality of noticing related directly to the
improvements made when the students were given an opportunity to revise their
original texts one week after the stimulated recall stage.
This brief review of studies involving reformulation has identied several ways of
implementing reformulation as a teaching/learning technique to lead to improved
writing. The effectiveness of the technique depends on learner variables such as the
prociency of the participants, and features of its implementation such as the
instructions participants receive, and the opportunity for peer discussion (or lack of
such opportunity).
In the study presented in the current article, our participants are grade 7 (age 12
years) immersion students in an early French immersion program. They are average
and above average students in their class, and as we will see, they have several
opportunities for talking it through during a multi-stage task.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 288
1.3. French immersion in Canada
The rst French immersion program in Canada was established in 1965 in an
English-speaking suburb of Montreal in Canadas only ofcially French-speaking
province, Quebec (Lambert & Tucker, 1972). The anglophone parents who
pressured the school board to set up such an intensive French program would
probably not have imagined, that some 35 years later, fully 8% of the Canadian
school population would be enrolled in similar programs in every province and
territory.
Immersion programs in Canada have provided a useful context for examining
language learning in progress. Students exposure to French tends to be conned to
the classroom, and target-language models include the teacher (who may or may not
be francophone, but must have near-native prociency in French) and print and
audio materials. As one would expect, the output students hear from their peers is
marked by inaccuracies, and since it also serves as input (Lightbown, 1992; Swain,
1985) in the immersion classroom, this contributes to limiting the native-speaking
French models to which the learners have access. The limited access to native-like
models of the target language is one explanation for the commonly reported nding
that after some years of schooling, immersion students communicate uently but not
accurately in French (e.g. Genesee, 1987; Harley, 1992; Lyster, 1995; Swain &
Lapkin, 1982).
Another factor to bear in mind is the fact that immersion students do not
have many opportunities to produce language, at least according to the few
classroom observation studies available. For example, Allen, Swain, Harley,
and Cummins (1990) found that the overwhelming majority (over 80%)
of student utterances in the grade 3 and 6 classes participating in the study
were one clause or shorter in length. Mantello (1996) reported that her grade 8
extended French students, who may be considered quite representative,
were taken aback at the amount of writing they were asked to do, and that she
herself, as an experienced teacher, had not previously required as much
writing from her students (in her study the students wrote one composition
per week for 7 weeks). Although it is difcult to generalize from the small
number of relevant studies, our experience also suggests that there are few
opportunities for extended output in the upper elementary grades of immersion.
The importance of output for second language learning has been rmly established
both in theoretical discussions (e.g. de Bot, 1996; Ellis, 1994; Swain, 1985, 2000) and
in empirical investigations (e.g. DeKeyser & Sokalski, 1996; Izumi, 2000; Swain &
Lapkin, 1995).
The two participants in the study presented here come from a typical early French
immersion program. They began their schooling at the Kindergarten level (age 5)
entirely in French. Instruction in grades 1 and 2 was also in the medium of the target
language. English language arts was introduced for about an hour a day in grade 3,
and thereafter the proportion of the school day in English increased until grade 5,
when the instructional day was divided evenly between subjects taught in English
and French.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 289
2. Methodology
2.1. Research context
The study took place in a middle-class neighborhood in Toronto, a large multi-
ethnic city in southern Ontario. The principal of the school gave us access to a small
though cluttered room where we could set up our equipment and be relatively free of
interruptions. One research assistant operated a video camera; another two tape-
recorders; while a third gave instructions to the students in the task sessions and
conducted the interviews. In spite of the presence of the three research assistants and
the equipment, the two student participants, Dara and Nina, appeared quite at ease
though highly attentive. When asked during the nal interviews, If we hadnt been in
the room when you did the activity, would you have taken it as seriously?, Dara
responded with I think we would have. I think I would have because it would have
been as an assignment and I always nish my homework. So I would have taken it
seriously. And independently, Nina replied, Yes, because Im just like that. I dont
want to get in trouble or anything. Both Dara and Nina stated, however, that they
probably would not have continued speaking in French if the researchers had left the
room.
Dara and Nina were in a grade seven French immersion class, having been in a
French immersion program since kindergarten. They had been told that we were
interested in how students learn French, and that we wanted their opinions about the
usefulness of various activities as an aid to learning French. In the nal interviews,
they did not hesitate to tell us what they liked and did not like about the activities in
which they had participated, so our impression is that they were not intimidated by
the situation.
2.2. Research questions
This study investigates two main questions:
1. What do students notice while comparing a story they wrote in their L2 to a
native-speaker reformulation of it? Do they accept or reject the changes made to
their story? For what reasons?
2. Do the participants make revisions to their original stories (an indication that
learning occurred) based on the reformulation and their collaborative dialogues?
2.3. Design
The data presented in this paper come from one pair of learners, Nina and Dara
(pseudonyms), and constitute a subset of data collected from 12 grade 7 French
immersion students (aged 12) during the spring of 2000. The participants were drawn
from a single class in a middle school in the greater Toronto area where most
students come from middle-income families. From among the students who returned
signed permission forms, the teacher constituted four pairs, two composed of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 290
average students, and two composed of a relatively strong and a relatively weaker
student. The teacher assigned a rating to each student in the class on a 7-point scale,
where 7 indicates a high level of prociency in French. Nina got a rating of 6 on
the seven-point scale, while Dara got an average rating of 4.
The data collection unfolded over a period of two school weeks in the following
stages/sessions (the language of each session and the approximate length of time it
took Dara and Nina to do each session appear in parentheses for each stage):
Stage 1: Writing (in French; 30 min). At the beginning of the session we showed
the students a 5-min videotaped lesson focusing on pronominal verbs in French (les
verbes r! e! echis); the video included a short segment where two students modelled a
jigsaw task (for details, see Lapkin & Swain, 2000; Lapkin, Swain, & Smith, 2002).
Dara and Nina then did a similar jigsaw task (described below) collaboratively, rst
orally and then in writing. A native speaker reformulated their text, in preparation
for stage 2. The reformulator had been asked to revise the students text to reect
target-language usage while preserving the students original meaning.
1
Stage 2: Noticing (in French; 10 min). The students were asked to notice
differences between their stage 1 text (which we had typewritten prior to the session)
and the reformulated version of it (also typewritten). Dara and Nina used a
highlighter to mark the differences that they noticed, usually verbalizing the item or
structure from their own text and from the reformulated text, and occasionally
commenting on it.
Stage 3: Stimulated recall (in English; 40 min). We showed the videotape of stage 2
to the learners, stopping the tape at each feature they had noticed, and asking them
to comment on the differences. To prepare for this stage, the research team watched
the video of stage 2, locating where Dara and Nina had verbalized differences
between the two texts. In stage 3, then, one research assistant operated the video,
stopping at each relevant location. A second researcher operated tape recorders and
a third identied the changes and asked the participants to comment on what they
were thinking as they compared the two texts.
Stage 4: Post-test (15 min). We gave each learner a typewritten copy of their
original story and asked her to write the story again, making any changes she
wanted. The two students worked independently.
Stage 5: Interview (in English; 15 min for Nina and 20 min for Dara). One research
assistant interviewed Dara and Nina individually to elicit their perceptions of all
stages in the task.
These sessions took place over two school weeks as shown in Table 1.
2.4. Task
The jigsaw task was an information-gap activity that we have used in previous
research (e.g. Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2001), based on a series of
eight pictures (Appendix A). One student held pictures numbered 1, 3, 5 and 7, and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
The reformulation thus included both reconstruction and reformulation as Cohen (1983) discusses
there.
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 291
the other pictures 2, 4, 6 and 8. They took turns to narrate the story told by the
pictures. Then they laid all the pictures out in sequence on the table, and wrote out
the story they had told. In this case, Dara began the writing, and Nina took over
after a short while.
2.5. Data analysis
We transcribed the talk of the learners as they worked together to write the story
(stage 1), to notice differences between their written narrative and the reformulated
version of it (stage 2), and to reect on those differences in the stimulated recall
session (stage 3). We also transcribed their individual interviews (stage 5).
We then coded the transcribed data from stages 13 for language-related episodes
(LREs), originally dened as any part of the dialogue where learners talk about the
language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or
others (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). The LRE has been used to analyze the dialogue that
occurs during collaborative writing (here, stage 1, see Swain & Lapkin, 1998). For
analyses of stages 2 and 3, we extended the denition to include any part of the
dialogue where learners talk about the language they produced, and reect on their
language use; this usually includes an indication of whether they accepted or rejected
the way in which their original text had been reformulated. Depending on the
linguistic focus of the LRE, we coded it in one of three main categories:
*
Lexicalincludes adverbs, nouns, adjectives and verbs.
*
Formincludes article gender, possessive pronoun/article, preposition, preposi-
tion+article, pronoun reference, sentence structure, spelling, pronominal verb,
verb form.
*
Discourseincludes discourse marker, logical sequencing, stylistics, tense
sequencing, temporal sequencing, text structure.
We also coded the LREs occurring in stage 3 (stimulated recall) in terms of
whether Nina, Dara, or both students accepted or rejected the way in which the item
or structure in their original text had been reformulated. These coding decisions were
based on information found in stages 2 and 3.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Data collection timetable for Dara and Nina
Week 1 Week 2
Tuesday Thursday Monday Thursday Friday
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Writing (pre-test) Noticing Stimulated recall Post-tests Interviews
30 min, in French 10 min, in French 40 min, in English 15 min for each
student
1520 min for
each student
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 292
Four members of the research team worked together to develop and code a
portion of one stage 3 stimulated recall transcript. Then we worked individually on a
further portion and met again to ensure that we agreed both on the boundaries of
individual LREs and on their categorization. Two research assistants then coded the
remainder of the transcripts (stages 13) and identied any coding difculties; the
latter were discussed and resolved at a subsequent project meeting.
3. Findings
3.1. Overview of LREs
In the writing session, Nina and Dara produced 47 LREs.
2
In the noticing session,
they produced 21 LREs. The reformulator, a native speaker of French, made a total
of 29 changes to their text; of these, the students failed to comment on eight during
the noticing stage; most of these unnoticed items were accents or punctuation
marks such as commas. Finally, in the stimulated recall session, Dara and Nina
produced 23 LREs. In general, in each of the three sessions of writing, noticing, and
stimulated recall, Nina and Dara paid more attention to form than to lexis or
discourse.
3
3.2. Qualitative analyses
We turn now to three examples in which we look across all sessions, taking note of
the original form the students writing took, its reformulation, the relevant LREs
from all stages, and the post-test results. The data presented in these examples
address our research questions, that is what the students notice as they compare their
text to a reformulation, whether they accept the changes or not and why, and what
they learn from the reformulations and the collaborative dialogues as evidenced by
the post-test results.
Based on the noticing and stimulated recall protocols, we categorized the LREs
into two broad types: those where the learners (one or both) accepted the
reformulation and those where the learners (one or both) rejected the reformulation.
First we look at two examples where Dara and Nina do not accept the
reformulation. We were particularly interested in why they would reject such expert
feedback, and our rst two examples suggest two main reasons for their decision to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
In a previous study using the same stimulus material, but with grade 8 French immersion students, we
found an average of 8.8 LREs per pair of students. (The range was from 1 to 26 LREs in the 12 dyads in
that class: Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Clearly the context in which the data were collected had an inuence:
pairs were withdrawn from the classroom and worked together in a quiet room with 3 researchers present
in the current study, whereas pairs worked together in a classroom with all the attendant noise and
distractions in the earlier study.
3
When averaged across the three sessions, 52% of the LREs were form-based; 28% lexis-based; and
20% discourse-based. We feel that the LREs discussed in this article are representative of the entire set of
LREs that Nina and Dara produced.
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 293
reject the authority of the reformulated text.
4
These are followed by one further
example representing a case where Nina and Dara accepted the reformulation.
Overall, Nina and/or Dara accepted 65% of the reformulations and rejected 35% of
them.
The examples that follow, then, provide excerpts from the talk that took
place during the writing, noticing and stimulated recall stages: these are sets of LREs
in tabular form, setting out stages 13 in sequence. The heading of each table
includes the item or structure as written by the dyad, its reformulation, and its
realization in each students post-test. Italicized headings represent our coding
decisions. To put these LREs in context, refer to Appendix B which includes
the original story written by Nina and Dara, the reformulation, and each students
post-test.
Table 2 presents an example of a set of LREs relating to the prepositional phrase
de la maison (one LRE in the writing stage, a corresponding LRE in the noticing
stage and another in the stimulated recall stage). Here the learners reject the
reformulated phrase initially, in part because of an incorrect rule one of them (Nina)
has internalized. In turn 464 of the writing stage, Nina questions whether the correct
phrase is de la maison or du maison, and Dara (turn 465) is equally hesitant. In turn
466, Nina articulates the incorrect rule that de+la equals du, and Dara (turn 467)
accepts this.
In the stage 2 noticing session, in turn 109, Nina explicitly notices and
verbalizes the difference between their text and the reformulated one, and Dara
laughingly says I told you so! In the stimulated recall, however, Dara (turn 214)
states that either alternative would have been acceptable. Nina reminds her (turns
215 and 217) that they had hesitated during the writing stage and had agreed on du.
Nina reiterates her rule in turn 219 (is not it de la equal du?) and acknowledges I
dont know; and later (turn 226) Dara asserts that De la does make more sense.
Nina (turn 227) still holds, albeit with some uncertainty, to her rule as the exchange
comes to an end.
This set of LREs illustrates the power of an internalized rule to prevail, as
Nina sticks with du maison in her post-test; Dara, on the other hand, holds to her
assertion that De la does make more sense and uses the correct de la maison in her
post-test.
Another reason for rejecting a reformulated item or structure is illustrated
in Table 3. Here the learners reject the adverbial phrase as it was reformulated
(dans le silence) and use the acceptable and grammatically correct alternatives
(en silenceNina, and silencieusementDara) in order to preserve their
original meaning. In their story, the students had written Il est maintenant
6:01 et elle sendore sans bruit, using the phrase sans bruit (without a sound
[literally, without noise]), and the reformulator decided to change the phrase to
dans le silence (in the silence), slightly altering the meaning in so doing. Nina
and Dara put the emphasis on how Marie-France falls asleep, i.e. without a
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
The students mistakenly thought that the research assistants had reformulated their original story;
their challenging some of the changes to their story therefore took a lot of courage!
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 294
sound, and the reformulation highlights the state of the room, which is now silent. In
the brief noticing segment (turns 5962), Nina and Dara notice the difference, and
are able to articulate it in turn 109 of the stimulated recall: I think sans bruit is more,
she, she fell asleep and she didnt make any noise. But silence is like everything around
her is silent. Here the determination to preserve their own meaning is a powerful
force, although the students do so using the lexical item (silence) that the
reformulator proposed.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
LREs relating to de la maison
Original story (pre-test): Elle sort du maison
Reformulation: de la maison
Post-test Nina: du maison
Post-test Dara: de la maison
Stage 1 writing Stage 2 noticing Stage 3 stimulated recall
Form LRE
(preposition+article)
Nina rejects (and Dara accepts)
reformulation
464. N. OK, elleyvingt
minutes plus tard elle sort
du maison. Elle sort de la
maison? Ou du maison?
107. N. Elle sort du maison 213. R. Ok so de la maison and du
maison
465. D. De, non, du
108. D. en courant.
214. D. uh, it could have been any
way.
466. N. Non, parce que de
la cest du
109. N. du mai?ydeyIls
ont mis. Quest-ce qu on a
mis? On a mis du maison,
ils ont fait de la maison.
215. N. it has to do with du, de la. I
remember when we were rst writing
it.
467. D. Oui
110. D. Je tai dit! Ou tu as
dity[laughs] 216 D. Yeah.
468. N. sort du
maisonysortyen courant
217. N. and we went like is it either
du or de la? And we agreed that it
was du but I dont know [laughs] 469. D. sort du maisony
218. D. I dont think I can remember
it exactly, but
219. N. Yeah, sometimes its like de
la? Isnt it de la equal du? I dont
know.
220. D. Nooo! Shoot, uh, ok
221. R. So you know theres a rule in
there, but
222. D. um-hum, like I cannot
remember things that I learned in
grade ve. They are a complete blur
[laughter], so
223. R. Many things are blurry to me.
226. D. de la does make more sense.
Well, I dont know. De la
227. N. equalsy
228. D. Really?
229. N. Yeah.
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 295
Table 4 presents an LRE where the learners accepted the reformulated item and
appeared to learn it during stages 2 and 3. In stage 1 Nina hesitates between the
pronominal verb se souvient and the (incorrect) souvient (turns 335 and 347), asking
in turn 351 which form is correct. Dara is equally uncertain, repeating both
alternatives twice in turn 352, and settling on the incorrect form in turn 354. Nina
appears to accept this (turn 357), and Daras private speech
5
in turn 358 (where she
again produces the form se souvient, but then rejects it) reveals their decision about
the correctness of souvient. In turn 361 Dara makes explicit her rejection of se
souvient and the two learners agree on souvient (turns 362 and 363) and use it in their
story (turn 366).
In the noticing stage, Dara reads from their own text, elle souvient (turn 79), Nina
queries the reformulated se souvient? (turn 80), and then the students play a game of
I told you so! Ninas je tai dit in turn 82 probably reects the fact that she was
the one to question which form was correct in stage 1 (turn 335). Dara highlights the
correct se souvient and they move on.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
LREs relating to dans le silence
Original story
(pre-test):
sans bruit
Reformulation: dans le silence
Post-test Nina: en silence
Post-test Dara: silencieusement
Stage 1 writing Stage 2 noticing Stage 3 stimulated recall
N=A Lexical LRE
(adverb)
Reject reformulation
59. D. Okay. Se
rendort en silence.
101. R. ythe part that we wanted to ask you
about was sans bruit [shows relevant part of stage
2 video]yDid you get that part? 60. N. Quest-ce qu
on a mis? 102. N. Yes
61. D. sans bruit 103. R. When
62. N. okay. 104. N. sans bruit. Yeah
105. R. Ok
106. D. What did you change to?
107. R. Dans le silence.
108. D. Ah, ok
109. N. I think sans bruit is more, she, she fell
asleep and she didnt make any noise. But silence
is like everything around her is silent.
110. D. is silent
5
Dara is speaking very softly in turn 358, leading us to label that utterance as private speech.
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 296
Prompted by the researcher in the stimulated recall, Nina states the rule for
reexive verbs in turns 174 and 176.
6
In the post-tests, both learners get the item
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
LREs relating to se souvient
Original story (pre-test): elle souvient
Reformulation: se souvient
Post-test Nina: se souvient
Post-test Dara: se souvient
Stage 1 writing Stage 2 noticing Stage 3 stimulated recall
Form LRE (Pronominal verb) Accept reformulation Accept reformulation
334. D. Elle. 79. D. Tout " a coup, elle
souvient
173. R. so why did you need se
in any case? 335. Elle se souvient, non, Elle
souvient quelle a unyune
pratique de chorale, alors elle se
l" eve
80. N. Elle se souvient? 174. N. Because, because its
like something that is
happening to her.
336. D. Tout a coup
81. D. Ahh.
175. D. its sort of like suddenly
I think. 347. N. Elle ssse
82. N. Oh! Je tai dit!
176. N. No, its not like that.
Something is happening to her,
like the action is happening to
her. So it has to be a verbe
r! e! echi.
350. D. Elle souvient
83. D. non, tu nas pas!
351. N. se souvient ou souvient?
84. N. Oui!
352. D. Elle souvientyahh, elle se
souvientyElle souvientyElle se
souvient, non
85. D. Oh. Tu ! ecris.
353. N. pasy
86. N. Ok, um. Elle se
souvient.
354. D. Elle souvient quelle doit
aller au bandy?
87. D. souvient.
355. N. Chorale.
356. D. Chorale.
357. N. xxxTout " a coup elle
souvient quelleydoit aller a la
chorale
358. D. [very softly] elle se
souvientynon.
359. D. Alors elle
360. N. non, waitytout " a coup
elleyse souvient?
361. D. Je pense pas que cest se
souvient
362. N. oh, souvientysouvient
363. D. Elle souvient quelle a le
chorale
364. N. Quelle doit se pr! eparer
365. D. Oui
366. N. pour le choraleynon,
tout " a coup elle souvient quil y a
une pratique de chorale
6
In turn 175 Dara is misled in her response by her tout " a coup in turn 366 of stage 1.
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 297
right, suggesting their noticing in stage 2 and their collaborative dialogue in stage 3
played a role in their ability to produce the correct pronominal form of the verb.
Their producing se souvient in the post-test suggests that they were ready for the
feedback provided by the reformulated text.
7
3.3. Post-test results
As stated above, there were a total of 47 LREs in the writing session. Of those,
37% or 78% were resolved correctly. In essence, then, this means that Nina
and Daras written story can be considered as a pre-test. That is to say, Nina
and Daras story consisted of a text which incorporated their solutions to the
language problems they had identied while composing. But in some cases, they
were unable to resolve them correctly. Their text, then, was left with those
cases where they were unable to correctly resolve the problem, and those cases
where they did not even notice that there was one. These were, in general, the
items or structures reformulated by the native speaker. Thus the changes
that Nina and Dara each made to their original written story when they individually
rewrote it towards the end of week 2 represent what each learned from
noticing the feedback (in the reformulated text) and from their dialogue
about it during the stimulated recall in which they reected on the changes made
to their writing. It is in this sense that we consider each students rewritten text as a
post-test.
We coded the post-test (stage 4) data by noting, for each reformulated item or
structure, whether Nina and/or Dara got the item right or wrong. Items were
considered correct if (a) they corresponded to the reformulated version of (b) they
were an acceptable (correct) alternative. Eighty percent of Daras and Ninas
changes were correct. Of those, approximately two-thirds corresponded exactly to
the reformulation, and one third were an acceptable alternative. The majority (three-
quarters) of Nina and Daras responses were correct when they accepted the
reformulation. Interestingly, approximately three-quarters of their responses were
also correct when they rejected the reformulation. This apparent anomaly can be
explained by reference to the three sets of LREs discussed above. Both acceptance
and rejection of the reformulators changes led to talking it through. This
intermental process of talking it through mediated internalization such that each
learner could individually draw on the knowledge they had previously jointly
constructed.
4. Conclusions and discussion
In summary, we found that reformulation of learners writing, as implemented in
our study, is an effective technique for stimulating noticing and reection on
language. The various stages of the task proved to engage these learners and provide
ARTICLE IN PRESS
7
That is, the feedback was in their ZPD.
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 298
numerous opportunities for collaborative dialogue. During their collaborative
dialogues, Nina and Dara noticed most of the differences between their story and the
reformulated text, accepting or rejecting what they noticed. In just over a third of the
cases, they rejected the reformulation. Rejection, however, does not necessarily mean
that no learning occurred.
There were two main reasons why Nina and/or Dara rejected a reformulation.
First, the student had a rule that the reformulation violated, and she saw
no reason to give up the rule. In Ninas words, I thought some of the
corrections were not necessary. Second, the students felt that the reformulation
changed their intended meaning; it did not respect the meaning they had
created and so they were unwilling to incorporate it into the existing text.
As Nina said during her interview, Some of them [the reformulations], they seemed
like they changed the story sort of and it wasnt really ours. In her interview Dara
explained that: it would have been [more] helpful to have someone at about the same
level or a little higher, like in possibly grade nine or something, go over it [their
story]cause thats like closer to us and we would understand more the words and stuff.
In other words, in some instances the reformulation did not serve as a successful
scaffold.
Nina and Dara each got approximately 78% of the post-test items or structures
correct, a fact that attests to the power of the multi-stage writing, noticing and
stimulated recall processes. Multiple opportunities to talk it through meant that
the learners could reect on the language point in question and come to a deeper
understanding of the proposed change.
We conclude with Daras comment during her interview which indicates her view
on the value of her dialogue with Nina: When youre doing something in pairs you
have different ideas and you can incorporate them to make it better. She believed that
for feedback to have an impact on her learning she needed to be able to talk about it.
OK, so they changed something. But you dont know why they changed it. So thats
why its better to have the person like, talking to you about the corrections that theyve
made. In a real classroom context, of course, one would hope that the teacher
would play this role.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible through a grant (No. 410-99-0269) from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Merrill Swain
and Sharon Lapkin. We wish to thank the project team, Carole Bracco, Lindsay
Brooks, Agustina Tocalli-Beller, Linda Schmeichel, and Monika Smith. We also
wish to thank Andrew Cohen, Alister Cumming and Miles Turnbull who provided
valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this paper. We could not have collected the
data without the cooperation and assistance of the principal, teachers and students
of the school; although we cannot identify them, we thank them for their
collaboration.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 299
Appendix A. Pictures used in Jigsaw task
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 300
Appendix B
Nina+Dara
Pre-test (collaboratively written)
Dormir o" u ne pas dormir?
C! etait un jeudi matin et le soleil se l" eve. Marie-France est encore endormi. Cest 6:00
du matin et soudainement, elle entend le sonnet de son alarme. Elle essaye de
dormir malgr! e le bruit. Finalement, elle en a assez. Elle decide darr# eter lalarme
avec son orteil. Il est maintenant 6:01 et elle sendore sans bruit. Quand elle ne se l" eve
pas, larme devint frustr! e. Un bras y sort et commence de la chatouiller avec une
plume. Tout " a coup, elle souvien quil y a une pratique de chorale. Elle se force " a
sortir du lit et elle se prepare pour l! ecole en brossant ses dents et cheveux. 20 min
plus tard elle sort du maison en courant et essaye dattraper son ami Mike pour se
rendre " a l! ecole.
Reformulation
Dormir o" u ne pas dormir?
Cest un jeudi matin et le soleil se l" eve. Marie-France dort encore. Il est 6:00 du matin
et soudain, elle entend la sonnerie de son r! eveil. Elle essaie de dormir malgr! e le bruit.
Finalement, elle en a assez et d! ecide darr# eter la sonnerie avec son orteil. Il est
maintenant 6:01, et elle se rendort dans le silence. Voyant quelle ne se l" eve pas, le
r! eveil d! ecide dagir. Un bras en sort et commence " a la chatouiller avec une plume.
Tout " a coup, elle se souvient quil y a une pratique de chorale. Elle se force " a sortir du
lit, et elle se pr! epare pour l! ecole: elle se lave les dents et se brosse les cheveux. 20 min
plus tard, elle sort de la maison en courant et essaie de rattrapper son ami Mike pour
se rendre " a l ! ecole avec lui.
Post-testDara
Dormir o" u ne pas dormir?
Cest un jeudi matin et le soleil se l" eve. Marie-France est encore endormi. Cest 6:00 h
du matin, soudainement, elle entend la sonnerrie de son alarme. Elle essaie de
dormir, malgr! e le bruit. Finalement, elle en a assez, et d! ecide darr# eter la sonnerrie
avec son orteil. Il est maintenant 6:01 h, et elle sendore silencieusement. Voyons
quelle ne l" eve pas, lalarme devient frustr! e. Un bras en sort et commence de la
chatouiller avec une plume. Tout " a coup, elle se souvient quil y a une pratique de
chorale. Elle se force " a sortir du lit et se pr! epare pour l! ecole: en brossant les dents et
les cheveux. 20 min plus tard, elle sort de la maison en courant et essaie dattraper son
ami Mike pour se rendre " a l! ecole.
Post-testNina
Dormir o" u ne pas dormir?
Cest un jeudi matin et le soleil se l" eve. Marie-France dors. Cest 6:00 du matin, et
soudain, elle entend son sonnerie. Elle essaie de dormir malgr! e le bruit. Finalement,
elle en a assez et decide darr# eter la sonnerie avec son orteil. Il est maintenant 6:01 et
elle se rendore en silence. Quand elle ne se l" eve pas, la sonnerie decide dagir. Un bras
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 301
en sort et commence " a la chatouiller avec une plume. Tout " a coup, elle se souvient
quil y a une pratique de chorale. Elle se force " a sortir du lit et en preparant pour
l! ecole, elle brosse ses dents et cheveux. 20 min plus tard, elle sort du maison en
courrant et essaie de rattraper son ami Mike pour se rendre " a l! ecole.
References
Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: towards a more
comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain
(Eds.), The development of second language prociency (pp. 5781). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Allwright, R. L., Woodley, M.-P., & Allwright, J. M. (1988). Investigating reformulation as a practical
strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 9, 236256.
Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2001). Collaborative writing and expert feedback: How they support second
language learning. Toronto: OISE/UT.
Cohen, A. (1982). Writing like a native: The process of reformulation. ERIC ED 224 338. Retrieved, from
the World Wide Web.
Cohen, A. (1983). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner.
Retrieved, from the World Wide Web.
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529555.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer
revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 5168.
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production
practice. Language Learning, 46, 613642.
DiCamilla, F. J., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A
Vygotskian perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(4), 609633.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galperin, P. Y. (1967). On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology, 5, 2833.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education.
Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Harley, B. (1992). Patterns of second language development in French immersion. Journal of French
Language Studies, 2, 159183.
Izumi, S. (2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input
enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University, Washington,
DC.
Kinginger, C. (2000). Learning the pragmatics of solidarity in the networked foreign language classroom.
In J. K. Hall, & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom
interaction (pp. 2346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote
metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284309). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Abstracts, 33, 7996.
Lantolf, J. P. (2001). Private speech and internalization in second language learning: A
theoretical argument with some empirical evidence. Paper presented at the eighth annual
meeting of the sociocultural and second language learning research working group, Toronto:
OISE/UT.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 302
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to
second language research. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second
language research (pp. 132). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2000). Task outcomes: A focus on immersion students use of pronominal verbs
in their writing. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 10011017.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in
a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 485507.
Levenston, E. A. (1978). Error analysis of free comparison: The theory and the practice. Indian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 4, 111.
Lightbown, P. (1992). Getting quality input in the second/foreign language classroom. In C. Kramsch, &
S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study
(pp. 197198). New York, NY: D.C. Heath.
Lyster, R. (1995). Instructional strategies in French immersion: An annotated bibliography. Canada:
Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers.
Mantello, M. A. (1996). Selective error correction in intermediate extended French writing programs: A
comparative study of reformulation and coded feedback. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of
Toronto, Toronto.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Piper, A. (1995). Reformulation, evaluation and revision: Do they help academic writers? In M. L. Tickoo
(Ed.), Reading and writing. Theory into practice, Vol. 35 (pp. 2038). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional
Language Centre.
Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). An inquiry into the effects of noticing in a three-stage second language writing
task. Toronto: OISE/UT Modern Language Centre (mimeo).
Sanaoui, R. (1984). The use of reformulation in teaching writing to FSL students. Carleton Papers in
Applied Language Studies, 1, 139146.
Spielman Davidson, S. (2000). Collaborative dialogues in the zone of proximal development: Grade eight
French immersion students learning the conditional tense. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of
Toronto, Toronto.
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (1997). Constructing and deconstructing the self: Comparing post-
Vygotskian and discourse-based versions of social constructivism. Mind, Culture, and Activity, An
International Journal(4), 159172.
Storch, N. (1999a). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3),
363374.
Storch, N. (1999b). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language
Teaching Research, 5(1), 2953.
Storch, N. (2000). Is pair work conducive to language learning? The nature of assistance in adult ESL pair
work and its effect on language development. Paper presented at the conference: scaffolding and
language learning in educational contexts: Socio-cultural approaches to theory and practice, at the Centre
for language and literacy, University of Technology, Sydney, December 68, 2000.
Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its
effect on grammatical development. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition
(pp. 235253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative
dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peerpeer dialogue as a means of second language
learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171185.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 303
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In
M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,
teaching and testing (pp. 99118). Harlow, England: Longman.
Tang, G. M., & Tithecott, J. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16(2), 2038.
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote noticing. ELT Journal, 51,
326335.
Tocalli-Beller, A. (in press). Cognitive conict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative groups:
Insights into the affective and social dimensions. Canadian Modern Language Review.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development and peer collaboration: implications for
classroom practice. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 155172). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Villamil, O., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied
Linguistics, 19(4), 491514.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume I: Thinking and speaking. New York,
NY: Plenum.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee, & P.
Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Dr. Merrill Swain is a Professor in the Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Her interests include bilingual education
(particularly French immersion education) and communicative second language learning, teaching and
testing. Her present research focuses on the role of collaborative dialogue in second language learning. She
was President of the American Association for Applied Linguistics in 199899, and is currently a VP of the
International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA).
Dr. Sharon Lapkin is Professor in the Modern Language Centre and Second Language Education Program
of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto. She has published widely in the
area of French second language education. Professor Lapkin is co-Editor of the Canadian Modern
Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Swain, S. Lapkin / Int. J. Educ. Res. 37 (2002) 285304 304