Graphic Symbols as Mediation for Self-Regulation in the Processes of Revision

NII-Electronic Library Service

Graphic

Symbols

as

Mediation

for

Se-Regulation

in

the

Precesses

ofRevision SUZU-Manami

Doinlj,o[17ihersity

Abstmct

lhepresentstudy explores second languagewriters'use of_{graphicsymbols}assemiotic mediation inthe

processes

of theirselfrevisions and _peerrevisions of theirwritten compositions withinthefhamewotk of socioculturaltheoryand socialcognitive theoryLVVritersuse _grqphicsymbols as one ofmeans fhrse1firegulation orwhtingstrategies

(Villarni1

& Guerrero,1996;Zirnmerman& Kitsantas,1999).[lhe_presenistady considers

graphicsymbols as semiotic resources for_problemsolving. The meaning of serniotic mediatiori

(signs)

isthekey

,

to selfiregulation incognitive _processessuch as languageleamingor writingi Participantswere 24 Japanese universitystudents of Englishas aforeigrilanguage

(FL).

Ianalyzbd thedata:

(aj

thethink-aloud_protnoolsof

participanis'

selflrevisions;

(tD

transcriptionof theirdiscussionsduring

_peer

revisions;and

(c)

sdmulatedrecall interviewswhh them.Among allthe_{participatits}

(N

- 24),6 studerTts

(25%)

_usod

graphicsymbolsintheir revisiens. The_quaiitativedEtaof thestudy dernonstratedstuderrtsused some _grpphic'symbols as semiotic mediation of revision inselfrevisions and mediation of communidation in_peerreyisions. Thedifferentuse of graphicsymbolscan beexplained

by

cogtiitivewriting theoryGraphicsymbols sbow thaistudents ncniced _gaps

berweentheirinter]anguageand thenorms ofthe targetlanguage.

Key Wbrds :Graphic Symbo1SeliReguladonRevision SocialCognitiveTheorySecioculturallheory

1.introduction

Thepresentstudy explores the_precessesof second language

(L2)

writers' selfrvvision and _peerrevision focusingon theiruse ofgraphic symbols assemiotic mediation withintheftamewotkofsocieculturaltheoryand socialcogrlitivetheory:

SeMregulation

is

necessary in

the

_processof writing and revision because"writing activities are usually selfiplanried,seMinitiatea and se1fisustairked"

(Zimmerrnan

&

Ksembetg,

1997,_p.73),Writersuse "a graphic

representation" as one of means forse1flreguladon orwriting strategies

(Zimmerman

& Kitsantas,l999,_p.242),

Selfregulaionorsolitarymerrtal eflbrt

is

necessary inthe_processofwriting and revision

(Bereher

& Scardamalieg

1987),Furthermore,toexamine theuse of _graphicsymbols might explore the_processesof revision thatrevision research hasnotclarified_yet

Fitzgerald

(1987)

reviewed research on revisionofwritten textsinfirstlanguage

_(L1)

education and defined

revisionthus:

Revisionmeans making any changes atany _pointinthewriting _prooess.It

involyes

identifying

discrepancies

between

intendedand insLarrtiatedtext,docidingwhat could or shouldbechanged inthetext

and howtomake desiredchanges, arid operating, thatis,rnaking thedesiredchanges, Changesmay ermay

notaffectmeaning ofthe ten,and theymay bemajcrrorminotAlsQ,changes may bemade inthevvriter's mind beforebeinginstamiatedinwritten texiIattheime tenisfirstwritte4 and/or afiertextisfiistwritten.

-13-fp.484).

Revisionstudies haveused thinlc-aloudprcrtoools,imerviews,or_{quesdonnaires}toexamine

the

_processesof revision

(Fitagerald,

1987;Hayes,Fleweg Schriver;Stratman,'& Carqy,1987),Resea;=hon _graphicsymbols could demonstratethewriters'menta1 _processesbeforechanges were

instantiated

in

writtentext,

inthe_preserrtstudy,Iassume that_grqphicsymbols 'arecme ofL2writers'semiotic resources for_problem solving as well as communication

Clanguage),

Insociocultura1 theor)sthreeculturalfactorsare importantfor

human _{psychologicalpsocesses:}

_(aj

activhies,

(b)

artifacts

(including

signs and language),and

(c)

concepts

CLantoIC

2006).[[Ihe_presentstudy focuseson _{graphicsymbols}as one of artifacts.Ihemeaning of serniotic

mediadon

(sigris)

isthe"key _to

self-regulatiort' incognitive _processessuch as languagelearningor writing

(Lantolg

2oo6,_p.74).Donato

₍₂₀₀₀₎

explajned thatsemiodc toolscould

be

speech, writtentext,_gesuires,or other

aspects of thecontextua] environmerrt, AccQrdingtoTversky

_(2001),

_graphicscan haveseveralfunctionssuch as

"attracting

attention, supporting memoryl _providingmodels, and facilitatirtginferenceand diseovery"

(P.

79).

Lantolf

_(20oo)

hasargued "a

symbo1isasignthatderivesbsmeaning fromthe_systernwhich supports itand must beagreed upon

by

itsusers"

Cp.

22).

Villamiland Guerrero

(1996)

rqported L2writers' use ofsymbols as one eftheir mediating strategies during

28of

40

_peerrevision sessions.inVillamiland

Guemero's

study,

54

iritermediate-IevelESL universtt}r students used fivemediaing strategies:"1) _{emplcying symbols and external resouroes; 2)using}

the

_Ll;3)

prvviding

scafiiolding;4)resoning toiTTterlariguageknowledge;and 5)vocalizing _privatespeech"

ip.

61).Villamiland

Guerrerodescribedtheuse ofsymbols: "Tb _{facilitatethewritingoftl)efinaiversion,thestudentsused numbers or} astedsks (m draftsand RevisionSheets,cirvled_ponionsofthe textlaswell as utitized_symbolssuch as _parentheses, hracketsand arrows"

lp.60),

Villarni1and Guerrero

(1996)

didnot focuson how _{graphicsymbols}could facilitateL2writers' revision.

Furthermore,theirstudy examined

the

use of symbols only

in

_poarrevisiori,As

Cresswell

(2000)

pointedout,

thereisyery limitedresearch {m seifrevision.Iliereismuch less_systematicresearch on _{graphicsymbols,}which could Explore themental _processesbeforcchanges were instaintiatodinwritten text

CFitzgerala

1987).Baseden

theliterattncroview above, Iformnlatedtworesearch _questions:

1. Whatkindsofgraphic symbols doL2writersuse duringtheirself-revisicmsand _peerrevisions?

2. Forwhat_purposesdotheyuse the_{gEqphicsymbols}intheirserrevisioms and _peerrevisians?

2.Method ･

Thepresentresearch was conducted as _partsof my thesisstudy ofL2 writers' revisien

(Suzuki,

2006).Tlable

1shows

the

timetable

for

my

data

collection.

2.1Panicipants

[IWenty-fourJErpanesesec(md _yearuniversity EFL students who enrolled ina two semester long_general

Englishoourse vohmteerod to_participateinthe_presentstucly,lheywere al1registeredintheEnglishdepartment

ata_privatemiversityinJapan.They were lfom amiddle class socio-economic background,The curTent study was condueted in

the

middle of

the

fhll

semester The students were _placed

in

the

class

by

theirresultsen

the

NII-Electronic Library Service

TOEFL I[IPtest

CIk,st

ofEnglish asa･Foreign LariguageInstiaLnionalfestingProgram)develQpedfiom_thepast

TOEFL tests

by

theEducational[[bstingService

_a]TS).

Participarrtstook

the

roEFL ITP

before

thecourse started

inApri1.Themean ofparticipants' scoreson

the

TOEF]LITPtestwas 515,3and thestandarxtdeviadonwas 22.7.

22Grollpingof Students

[[hepresent study required two equivalerrtwriting t4sksas contexts to cornpare graphic_symbols that students made duringselerevisions and _peerrevisions.Partieipantswere dividectintotwo _groupswhich were sirpposed tobeas sim'lar as _possibleinL2

Mnglish)

proficiencMEnglish writing proficiency}gendegage or

lengthand context ofL2 learning.

TXvogrvups,A and B,were formedmndomly inreference tothefo11owingcriteria: individual_{participants'} means of theadjusted standard deviatienseoreson

the

roEFI.ITPtesttwo rnters'holisdcassessments and the

totaInumber of words of thestudents'written draftsthatthcyhadwTitten attheend of the_previoussemester as

course wotk.

Ihemeans and thestandard deviadonsof ages ineach _groLrp

(Grotrp

A and GroitpB)were almost thesame

(M=

20,1vs.M==

19.8;

sw = O.5_vs.5LD= O.8).Each

group'smean and staridarddeviationoflengthofEnglish learningwere alsoslrnilar

(M==

9.0_yearvs.M= 8.8_year;st)= 2.3_vs.st)= 1.7).Group A _{consisted eften} female

and twomale students, whereas

Group

Bcomprisod eigtTt

female

and

four

maie students.Eachdyadforthe_peer revisiontaskwas randomly selected

by

acomputer _program.

23 Procedure

The datawere collected over two weeks

("ieeks

6and 7)inthemiddle of thefaglsernester:Thesehedule

for

the

two_{groxps'perfrorrnance}ofselirevisions and _peeriovisionsis

given

in[ial)le2.Panicipantserigaged in thewitingtasksand revisions inthelangLJage1ahoratory;where theirclass was always held."Ilie

language

laboratoryand the_equipmentwere

fatniliar

to

the

_{participants.}

The followingisan explanation ofadministrationofFirst WritingThskand itsrevision.AfterIascertained

the_presenceand seating 1ocatlonsof _{participarrts}and explainod theschedule, al1_participantswrote an essay of TWE of ETS inwrting[Ilask1

(Famous

PersoninHistory)forthirtyminutes. Ihe _{panicipants'teacher}and I selected two essays forWritiirg[Ebsk1and WritingTlask2,considering

these

two _promptSmight beas_equivaleni as _possibleinstructtirediMculty;and _{participants'}interest

(see

Appendix).Beforethe_panicipantsbegantowrite

theessaM Itoldthernthatthe_promptofWriting [[bsk1was selected ffom

the

TWE. [[he4

Group

A studerrts

(thc

SelfirevisionGToxp)filledout a _{questionnaire}fordemogrqphicdatafortenrniriutes,GroupA studerrtsnext

listenedtothethink-aloudinstructionsthatIhadtape-recordedand _practicedbowtothink-aloudwhile selving a

multiplication_problern.Ihad_preparedtheinstructionstapeand thehandout

(a

scriptofthe instmctions)basedon proceduressuggested

by

Ericssonand Simon

(1993).

The recorded instructionswere spoken inEnglishand in

Japanese.Tbillustrate,I

thought

aloud inJapanesewhile solying amultiplication_problem.Tlie_participantswere

then

_given

a similar_problemtosolve,Followingthat,studerrtsinGroLrpA engaged inselirevision forfifteen

minutes. Studerrtswere toldthattheycould use either Japanese

(their

firstlanguage)or English

Ctheir

second language)whi]e thinking-aloud.The think-alouds which occurred duringtheselfrevisions were tape-recorded.

Finallylthestudentsfillodouttheirrterviewsign-irpsheet,

GreupB studerrts

(the

PeerRevisionGromp) listenedto thetape-recordedinstnictionsfbr

_peer

revision

immediatelyafierthey

finishod

writing theirfirstdrafts,Theinstructionswere _spokeninEnglishand thenin

-15-Japanese.Thescriptoftheinstructiomswas distributedtostudentsas ahandout,Studentsrevised one student's essay forfifLeenminutes, and thentheether students'essay

for

ancxher fifieen minutes, fo11owingmy directions.I askod studeritsto read-aloud a _partner'sdrafibeforetheydiscussedtheessay

for

fifteenminutes. Participants'

discussionsduringthese_peerrevisionswere tape-recorded.Finally,stttderrtsfi11edouttheinterviewsign-up sheet

Tal)le1Datathlationnmetable

Week6Writing [[bsk1

₍₃₀

mins) GroLrpA GreirpB Week7Writing Tbsk2

₍₃₀

mins)

GrvupA

GroupB Survcyof Participants' psofile(1 Omins) Peerrevision

(15

mins _per paperm)tota1 3Omins) Peerrevision

(15

mins _per pqperbtotal 30mins) Surveyof Participants' profile(10 mins) Ttaininghew tothink-aloud

(5

mins) interviews

Cwithintwe

days) Interviews

(within

two

days)

Ttainingbow tothink-aloud

(5

mins) Selffrevisien inthink-aloud

(15

mins) SeMrevision inthink-aloud

(15

mins) interviews

(withintwe

days) Interviews

(withiri

tWO days)

All-participantsused black_pensthatIdistributedforthefirstdrafts.intheselfirevision _group,panicipants used much thickerblue_peristhantheblackpenssothattextchanges that

they

made could bedistinguishable,In the_peerrevision_greLrp,studerTtswho revised theirown draftsused bluepenson theirown drailsand used _greefi

pensontheir_partner'sdrads.

Inthefo11owingweek, stttdentsengaged inWtiting[[lask2

Cwriting

about aFamous Errtertaineror Athlete),

The

sarne _pr<x)edureas describedabove forthe fustwriting taskand itsrevision was rqpeated. Howeveq participarrtsdidthecxher _procedureinWritingTaslc2

Cwhich

theyhadnet doneinVVriting[Ilask1).GroirpA revised withtheir_peegwhiie GroupB _performedsererevisions afierthcywrote firstdrafisofINliting [task2.

2.4interviervs

Withintwo daysafter_participantshadrevised theirdrnfis,Ioondueted interviewswith studerrts individually intheirteacher'sofice. Studerrtsfirstdecidedwhich laiigLiage

CLI

or L2) to be used intheinterviewLThe interviewwas tape-recorded.Participarrtsand lidentifiedal1graphicsymbols on theirdradstoanswer Research

Question

1

_(Graphic

_symbolsused inrevisions), Jaskod _participantsabont the

_purpose

of individual_graphic

symbols theyhadused. Iherecorded datawere transcribedand _{qualitatively}analyzed aswell as

the

think-aloud

prctoeolsinselfrevisions and thediscoiuscin_peerrevisions toanswer Research

Question

2

(Purpose

ofthe use

NII-Electronic Library Service

2.5IianscriptionConvelltionsinthisStudy

TlietranscriptionconyerTtionsIdiduse were:

Italics:discourseoriginallyspokon inEnglish

Block1etters:disoourseoriginallyspoken inJapaneseand thentranslatedbyme intoEngtish

Quotation

marks: writtentext

Quotation

marks with_paremheses:"lapanese _{discourseoriginallyspohen}

by

_studeiTts

Ony

_{Englishtranslation)"}

Squarebraskets:my annotations

a

describeasituation or show thereference ofa _pronounin_{participant's}

speech)

Iused arrows todistinguishstudents'written textsof revised draffsffomtheirtextsof firstdrnfisinthis

paperwhen1compared them inthesame context inthe_presentstudy. When students mikedabout amisspeLled word

in

their

written

drafis,

I

typed

the

misspe11ed word asitwas exccrptincases where studems nodced the misspelling intheirrevision sessions. Ialso

_typed

_grarnmaicalerrors instudents' discourseas theyoriginally appeared in

their

speech orwriting. Thenarnes ofparticiparitsareall_pseudonyms.

Tahle2StrheciuleoflSeijrevision GraupandPeer RevisionGroup

Time SlelflrevtsionGtvup

10:45-10:50 10:50-11:20 11:20-11:30 l1:30-11:40 1l:40-11:55 11:55-12:15

Preparation

for

WritingTlask Writing[Ibsk

Questionnaire

InstructionforSelfirevisionincludingthink-aloudpractice

Selflrevision

FillinSign-upSheet

Time ReerRevtsionGroup

10:45-10:50 10:50-11:20 11:20-ll:30 11:3O-11:45 ll:45-12:OO l2:OO-12:15

PreparationforWriting[Ibsk WritingTlask

InstructionforPeerRevision

PeerRevisionI

PeerRevisionff

FillinSign-upSheet

3.Results

Arnong thetwenty-fourparticipants,six_participants

(25%)

used _{graphicsymbols}ineithercondition for

revision.Haru drew_{graphicsymbols}inbothtypes of revisien. Akiraused an asterisk twiceinhisselfrevision.

[fotallM_{gtaphicsymbols}were used twelvetirnes

C?V

= 12).[the

fiequency

_{ofthe use of graphicsymbols was} the

sarne inselfrevisions and _peerrevisions

(n

==6respectively). Thepurposesofeach _graphicsymbo1 asstatedby

the_participantsinthe

interviews

with

me are_presented

in

[lbble

3.

-17-3.1UseofGraphic Symbols inSereRevisions

Resultsof_qualitativeanalysis showed

that

studerrtsused _{grpphicsymbols}as mediahon for_problemsolving inselfl･ievisions. Forexample, inherselfrevision.HanJwrete an asteriskbeforeare1adve _pronoun,`twhich,"

in

thesentence

below

on herdrati:

.,,thereisacorniccalled"YatNara!" _{which heroin}

[sic]

gir1was modeled

by

RyokoTanaka.

(first'dtatD

).,,thereisa comic called "Yiwara!" "which _heroin

_[sic]

_{gir1was modeled}

_by

_RyokoThrnura

_(revised

draft)

intheexcerpt belowHarutalkedabout theserrtence above. AfterHarurepeated are1ative_pronounclcuJsein

(hesentence, Lkvhich

heroln

girl

was modeled

by

Ryoke[[bunura7'several

timeeg

she e)q)ressed thatshe felt something wmng with theclauseattheend ofthe erccerpt,AsHarLireported inherirrterviewlshe niodtoreturn to

theclause 1atertoexamine the_partagain byleavinganasteriskbeforearelative_pronoun,`Cwhictr':

"7hete

isa comic caded theieisa comic callbd `Ibu,aiul',

which

heroin

_gbilwas modeled

tty

Ryoko

TanaktLmmbied which heroin_gr'nemodeled uas modeled

bj;

ibokoTanaha"Vilell,ah,Trm Wtong,

Tlarmu-ra.Why didIwrite this?DidIwrite somewhere incorrectly?Onlyhere?

kwko

7innunghervin

gtri

was moclelbd

tvi

lbolalboko7bmurzl

herein

gt'rlwas modellea weva wcLs u,hich which story u,hieh storywhich was mocieled calZed}bwan which heroin_ginlrvcLsmode1ed t{BIfeltsomething hereweights Lrponmy mind.

SimilarIMAkiraalsoused ariasterisktwiceinhisselfirevisionfor

the

_purposeas Haru.No one

adopted

graphicsymbolsforthesame _purposeduring_peerrevision.

3.2Useof Graphic Symbols inPeerRevisions

inpeerrevisions some _{graphicsymboIs}were used as a means of communication betweendyads,or

betweendyadsand their_potentialreadeis.Forexample, Harudrewabiacketand acolon attheend of thefirst

paragraphon herdraftinWrkingTlask1

cramous

PersoninHistory)to make herwriting clearer to her_partne4

Aki.lnLine5ofthe fo11owingexcerpt,Harudrewabracketand acolon toshow Akithefirst_paragraphclearlyon

herdrafi1as Harusaid intheinterviewafter the_peerrevision. [Ilienext excerpt was retrieved fromthe_peer reyision

by

Hani andAki:

1Han]:How about organization ofparagrapbs? We don'thavetothinkofitdowe?

2Aki:Huh,

3Haru:[[hatis,inttoductiOnbodbland cDnctasion XM:11,therewas no conchLsion.

4

Aki:No.

wnere?

Whereaie_paragraphs?

5Haru:Here,one _paragrqph.

de

no, va no,Loek,here.

6AkiiHereis one _lmrqgraphhereis anotherparqgraph, and thenhereis otherpatzigrqph, 7Haru:The4itcontinues totheend.Hbum-htmi.

8

Aki:

Isn'titOK?

NII-Electronic Library Service

Tal)le3T]ipesandPu,posas

ofGmphicSYmbolsthatPartici

tsbkeddimiugSleef,evisionsandPeerRevisiolzs

SheclentT)tpe

ofmsk

clndnfVision

Zipe

ofgtzlphic

spnbols SleeLstatedPurpose AkiraWriting [[bsk1 Selerevision deanasterisk

(twice)

toreturntothe_partand rethink atx}ut abetterexptession later

TarnakoWridng [Ibsk1

SelfirevisionNumbers1to5to

separaie_paragraphs

by

contents

Oo

make an organization) Number 1referstoiritroduction,Numbers2,3,and 4belong

tothe

body,

Number 5isa conclusion _part.

HaniWfiting Ilask1

PeerRevision

jabracket

toshow

her

_partner

the

end ofa _paragraph

HaruWtiting Tbsk1

PeerRevisionacolon toshow herpartnerthereisacelon here

HaruWriting [[bsk1

PoerRevision

flgrmphics

toshow a

newparagraph

tostartanew _paragraph

MarikoWriting Ihskl

PeerRevision

NNN"

.

awavy lineand a

qucslonmark

toskow

that

she and her_partnerdidnot findabetter expressionthere

HaruWriting [Ibsk2

Selfrevision

tc "t

quotatior1marksto e,pphasde thepart

Haruwnimg [[bsk2

Selfirevision

"anasterisk

toreturnto

the

_partand rethinkal)outabetterexpression 1ater

M WtitingTbsk2

Selfirovision

mgrqphics

toshow a

new _paragrqph

tostartanew _paragraph

dyakoWfiting

[Ebsk2

PeerRevision

oacircle

_{tothinkofa synonym forthecircled word}

Ayakownting Tlask2

PeerRevision

(

)

parentheses toshow thatshewondeied whether sheshould de1etethepart

GTaphicsyrnbolsasameans ofcommmication also

_appeared

duringthe_peerrevision ofMariko's draft.ln herinterviewMarikosaid thatshe used awavy lineand a_questlonmark on a_phrase"bigor

and bigof'

[sic]

on her

drafttoshcFw readers

that

sheand

her

_partnerdidnot findabetterexpression insteadof"biger and bigen"Mariko wrote inWritingrfask 1

(Famous

PersaninHistory):

[{bmeet and talktowonderful _peopleisvery _goodthingsforme inrea1lifeaswell.Ibelieveitmakes

me bigerand biger,

(first

draft)

-)It'sgood forme tomeet and talktowonderfu1 _peopleinreal lifeas well. Ibelieveitmakes me tLlggit

-19-and/bigg!;L'.

(Ievised

draft)

Theexcerpt belowwas _partof thediscussionarnong Marikoand Hanakoabout thesentence above on Mariko'sdraft.Theyniedbntfailedto

find

a

better

expression for"biger and biger:7'Marikodrewawavy 1ineand a_quesdonmark duringthediscussionbelow:

1Hanalco:`Ybelieve

itnzcikesmq itmakes me bigerandbigei: "

2Mariko:IshereOK? 1don'tthinkso.

3Hlanako:Justamoment,

4Mlariko:Iwant tosay"seicyosasete

kureru

(make

me develop)",I,alwaysdon'tknowthis,

5Hanako:Ah,Isee. lstheusage of"big " OK? Hum._.., 6Mariko:IAieEl,`igraw

up"isal)solutelyincorrect.Alwaysl'mwondering. ..,

7Hanako:wag waig wait,TbdaM I'mnot so well. I,hum....

8Mariko:Ah

9Hanako:"ooki

_(big)",

"seicyoshha

(grew

up)'L ah,that'sOK? Isn't

it?

1

don't

know

ariything,this

incorrecgthemeaning. ,.,

1OMatiko:Hum,..,

11Hanako: "seicyoshita _hitotachi

(grownrup

people)"hurn,"b[ger _and

bigec

_itmc

kes

_me"

12Mariko:Idon'tknow, l3Hanako:Ne.

Ayako alsoanswered thatshe used _parenthesestoshow herreaders that

slie

wondered whether she should

deletethe_{parenthesizedpart.}Thus,some _Epaphicsyrnbols were utilized as a means ofcornmunicatien between

partners,er betweena

dyad

and _pcrtentialreadcrcs,during_peerrevisions.

33GraphicSymbols and Lear"ing Histx)ry

Certaingraphicsymbolsinthecurrent study rqpresented individual students' personallearninghistory which displayscharacterisdcs of semiotic mediaien intermsof sociocultura1theory

(Donato,

2000;Lantolg

2000).Forexarnple, Tamako _gaveanumber frem1to5toeach paragraphinherdraftefWritingJlask1

(Famous

PersoninHistory)as away to

pm

her

essay. inherinterviex-Lshe said thatshe learnodthestructureofan essay inbothJapaneseand Englishclassesathighschool.Iasked herwhy she didnct use thenunibers inWriting

Thsk2

_(Famous

Entertaineror Ath1ete).Shesaid,"VV2:11,

Ididn'twrite thefirstessay by_paragrqph,butthistirneI wrote thesecond essay while _payingattention to_paragrephscarefu11y SoIdidn'tthinkIsheuld write the numbers."

(my

trunsladon).

Anotherexample was Aki,who saidthatshe ]eamedthe_{graphicsymbo1}toshow startinganew _paragraph

in

theU.S.Herelementary school teachers used thesymbol. Shesaicl,"That isone ofthe syrnbols my teacher used.when shewairted ustochange our writing,Isti11sometimes use three1inestoshow caphatization, Ididn't use the1inesymbols thistirne,7'

(rny

translation).Haru alsoused thesame _graphicsymbo1 tosihowa new

paragrqphand she reported thatsheknew itinthecomputen Thus,some _{graphicsymbols}inthe_psesentstudy iepreseritfldindividualstudents'learninghistoryand theculture ofthe society towhich theybelonged,

NII-Electronic Library Service

3.4Graphksas SemioticMediation

lncaseof Tatnako,_graphicsymbols helpedhertofacilitateherrevisionofWritingTbsk1.Whilewriting

numbers, stieopmd heressay. Inherthink-aloud_protocolre1ated tothe_{grqphicsymbels,}Tarriakoused

the

symbols as semi(rtic mediation

for

problemso]ving,HerfirstdraftinWritingTask1

CFamous

PersoninHistory)

hadonly asinglelong_paragrapixahhough she numbered where each _paragraphsLartedon herrevised draftOn

theother hand,herfirstdraftinWriting1[lask2

_(Famous

Errtertaineror Athlete)hadfour_paragrapbs,an

introduction,two bo(ly_parts,and aconclusion. inherintervie-LTarriakosaid thatshecould organize herfirstdraft

without_graphicsymbols inWritingTlask2,whichrppresented herinternaiizationfiomtheinteFmental_plane

(otheFregulation

bymeans of _{graphicsymbols)} to theintra-mental_plane

(self

regulation), as proposed

by

Xts,gotsky

_(1987),

Her learningoforgantuion

for

writingwas internalizedinwnimg Tlask2.Belowisan exoerpt

related tothe_{grmphicsymbols}fromTamako'sthink-alond_protooolduringherWriting[fask1:

Uhm, mereoveg "specgec

reasons and exnmplas tosupport _yozLrehaice," Iwrote naasons, and exnmptbs. Sincethereare few_paragrapbs,1willadd _paragrapbs.Hum, firstl`tij'I

could traveL"

next 't&?

theu,`Dl"

thereare "Flns4" `LSecond' and "71iiid" buttheyarzi not _paiagrapbs.SoImade _paiagraphs."Ihe first

paragraphis`tU'I

could nzn,eibcu]kintime,;'thesecond _paragrqphbeginswith `tlly

thewtof' and the

passageof`tFZrst."Thethirdbeginswith "Sboond' and theg"7Paird" isthefourth<sub>paragrqph.</sub>Ana thenthe ]astisthefifth<sub>pmpph</sub> beginningwith `tLike _these."

4.Discussion

Among al1theparticipantsinthe _presentstLicly

(iV

;=24), _{one-fourth students used greq}hicsymbols} lntheir

revisions.Thisstudy showed thatstuderitsused _graphicsymbols assemiotic mediatiog althoaghmy research about studerrts' uses ef _graphicsymbols was atrulyexploratory smal1-scale study/ Furthermore,uses of _grqphic symbols differedinthetwoconditions ofrevision. Graphic symbols can facilitate writers' _problemsolving during self･revisions, Use of _{graphicsymbols} can help L2 writers' revision. For example, Tamake develeped organizationofher writing,using _graphicsymbols

(writing

numbers), Akiraand Haruused ariasterisktomm to

the_partoftheir wrhing and rethinkaboat abetterexpression Iaten

Duringpeerrevisions, _{graphicsyrnbols}can beused forcoTnmunication between

dyads

or between

dyads

and their_potmtialreaders.Forexample, Haruused _graphicsymbols tomake

what

shetallcedabout clearto

her

partnerMarikodrewawavy lineand a_questionmark toshow herreadersthatshe and her_partnercoutd nct finda

betterexpression. Ayako wmte _parerrthesestosbow her_poterrtialreaders thatshe wendered whethersheshould

delete_partofher text.

4.1Distractienef Self-regulationinPeerRevhion

The

different

usesof graphicsyrnbols inselfrevision and _peerrevision may derivefromcharacteristics of

suiting and revisien.Selfiregulationor solitary mentnl etfort isnecessary inthe_processof writing and revision

(Bereiter

& Scardamalia,1987).AccordingtoZimmermariand Kitsantas

(l999),

suitingor revisiondemands"a

highlevelofpersonal discipline"

(p,

241)and highdegreesefmetacogriition

(Scardamalia

& Bereite;1983).[[he cotlaboTative revision and its_groLrpirrteractions

might

distract

studerrts'selfiregulaion inarevision taskiather

than_providethemwithmutual assistance. Furthermore,peerrevision mightdisruptwriters'memory loads,and

-21-thuscomplicate rather thanfacilitatethecoghtive _processesofwriting and revision

CFIower

& Hayes,198];

Hayes,1996;Hayes etal.,1987).The_{presentparticipants}were able touse graphicsymbols as a forrnof mediation ofrovisionintheiroognitive _processesof selfrevision,But

they

could not alfordtouse _graphicsas a revision strategx and so

just

employed _{grqlihicsymbols} forcommunicahon witheach otheq duringtheir_peer revisions.Furtherresearch on what

kinds

of collaborative writing taskcan reduce thecognitive demandsof writing orrevision,and facilitateL2learningisnecessary withregard toL2 learners'_proficienqyleveland writing expertise.Scardamakaand Bereiter

(1983)

suggested thatitwas diMcultfornovice writers te directcoghtive resources towriimg.

4.2PedagogicalSuggestionsforWriting

in

these

ways

described

al)ove,

_graphicsymbols _qppearedwherestuderrts noticed gapsbetweentheir

irrterlanguageand thenomis ofthe targetlanguage,Studerrtsofteri wrote _{graphicsymbols}where thcythoughtit necessary torevise.Teacherscould capitalizeon thisbyasking studentstowritecertain_{graphicsymbols}or cedes

on theirdraftswhere students･want to_getadvice or feedbackftomtheirteachersduringtheprecessefwriting or

revision.Suchgraphicsymbols could

help

ateacher to

give

apprqpriat2 and timelyfeedbacktoindividualstuderrts. Many _previousstudiesheweconcluded thatL2studerrtstendtoneglect theirteachers'

feedback

on theirwritten compositions

(Cohen,

1987;Cohen& Cavalcanti,1990;Leki,l990).Cehen and Cavalcantisuggest thatto counter this_problemteachersand studerrtsneed tohaveconsensus on the_purposesand modes of teachers'

feedbackon L2writing.Graphicsymbols could beameans tofaciltatesuch consensual cornmunieation between L2writing teachersand students.Asthe_presentstudy _pf{}vided,some L2learners

(active

agerrts)used _graphics symbols

(non-lingriistic

symbols) inthe_processof L2 writing or revision tasks.Some _syrnbolsrepsesented their

personallearninghistoryand culture inthesociety thqybelongedto.Some _{graphicsymbols} were adoptedto extend theirwrittenoommunication totheir_peersor_petentialreaders,which _gffvean example ofhow L2 learners

developedtheirL2leaming.

5.Conelusion

[Ihepreserrtstudy examined EFL

miversity

studerrts'uses of_graphicsymbols

in

the

_psocessesof

their

selfirevisionsand _peerrevisians.[[hisstudy didnot consider otherimportantknown factorssuch as LlorL2

1anguageeducaticmaland sociocultural backgreunds,gendegage,or teacherinstructionson students'revisionand writing

(Cmmng

199S,2001).Thisstudy only tbcusedon theuse ofgraphic _symbolsinL2 writing. [[he_present

studywas a small-seale exploratory study doneinone classroom

with

a select_grempof Japanesestudents

perft)rrning

just

one vvritingtasktypewithin shorttimedurations.Larger-scalestudies of _greq)hicsymbols in various contexts

(e.g.,

ESLcontexts,otherL2or FLwritingi may benecessary fordevelQpmentof theefiiictive use of _{graphicsymbols}inL2or FI.writing. lnspite of limitations,the_presentstudy shows that_graphicsymbols appear where studentsnotice_gapsbetweentheirinterlanguageand thenorms ofthetargetlanguage.[[heresults

NII-Electronic Library Service

References

Bereite4C.,& Scardamaliq M,

(198D,

71;eti

helojly

_qfivritlencomposition, Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaurn.

Cohe4 A.D.

(19g7).

Student_processingofliiedbackon theircompositions. inJ[Rubin

aid.),

Lenmer strategies

inlimgnge lenrniug

Clrp.

57-69).EnglewoodCli-tfs,･NJ:Preritice-Hall.

Cohen,A,D,,& Cayalcanti,M.C.

_(1990).

Feedback cm ccunposition:[Ieacherand studentverbalreports.inB.

Kroll

(Ed,),

Slacondlangu`Igewriting: Raseareh-insiglds

for

theekzss,oom

_(Pp,

l55-177).Camhridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cresswell,A.

_(2ooO).

Selflmonitoringinstudentwriting,ELT.lotllna454(3),235-244,

Cumming,A.

_(1998).

Theoretical_perspectiveson writing.AnmutIRew'ew

ofAlrpitedLiprguisn'c

_si8,61-78,

Cumming, A.

_(2001).

Learning,to'whtein a second language:TXvo

decades

efresearch.IhtethatiouatJbttnzal

oj'

EbeglishSimi'es,1(2),1-24.

Donato,R

_(2000).

SocioculturalcontributiDns tounderstanding theforeigriand second languageclassroom. ln

J,RLantolf

(Ed.),

SbciOczagtunalthebt),and seconti langtdclgelemning

(rrp.

27-5Q>.Oxfixd:OxfordUniversity Press.

Ericsson,K.,& Simon,H.

_(1993).

Rrotocolanalyyis: lerbalreports as dotu

(2nd

ed,). Cambridge,ma: MIT Press,

Fitigerald,J,

(19g7).

Researchon rvvision

in

writing.Review

pfEUiicationul

Resecllch57(4),481-506.

Floweq L,,&HEtyes,J,

_(l9g1).

A cQgnitive_pTocesstheoryofwriting. CbnegeCbmpsition`nd Cbmmtmicatio4

32,36S-387.

Hayes,J,

_(1996),

A new framewoik･forunderstanding cognition and afiectinwriting, lnC.M. Levy& S.

'Ransdell

(Ecls.),

7hescie,zce clfi",riting

(pp.

1-2D.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.

HajJeegJ,,Flowe;L.,Schrivcr;K.,Stratman,J.,& Cay L.

_(l987),

Cognitive_processesinrevision. lnS.Roseriberg

CEd.),Atfiurnces

incmpitedpmhoitngza'sties; Retidiugwriti,zg;and

linigtdic

_ge

leami,rg

(Nio1.

2,_pp.I76-240).

New Ybtk:Camtnidge UniversityPress.

Larrtolf;J.R

_(2ooO).

lntrochJcingsocioculturaltheory.lnJ.R Lantolf

_(Ed,),

Sbcioettltural77ieo,p,`md Sbcond

Langzsqgetmiug

(pp.

1-26).Oxford:(ixfordUniversityPress.

Lanto1fiJ.R

_(2oo6),

Socioculturaltheoryand L2.

Sh`d)'es

inSlecond[angucJgeAceuisitioig28,67-109, Leki,I,

(1990).

Coachingfromthemargins: Issuesinwrittenresponse.inB.Kroll

(Ed,),

Slecondlangt`clgewrih'ng'

Researehinsiightsfortheckzssroom

(Pp.

57-68).New Ybtk:CambridgeUnlversityPress.

Scardamalia,M,,& BereitegC.

_(1983).

The develcrpmentof eyaluative, diagriostic,and remedial cqpabilitiesin

childrettscomposing. InM,Mattlew

_CEd.),

lheewholbgy

_ofwnim

lmzgtficlge:De,aelopmentcnd erimtoual

perspectives

(pp.

67-95),Lcmdon:Wiley,

Suzulci,M.

_(2006).

?Vagotiation_processesand textchanges inlapaneseleamers'se(?revisions midpeer revi'sions

oftheir

written compsitions inlinglish.Unpublished

doctoial

dissertation,

Universityof[Ibrorrto,Tbronto,

dntnrio,Canada

[[iverslry,B.

_(2001).

Spaha1schemes indepictions.InM,Gattis

(Ed.),

Eipatinlsche,nczs and abstract thotrght

(pp.

79-112).Cambridge,MA: MIT Ptess.

Villamil,O,,& Guerrero,M. de.

_(1996).

PeerrevisiQn intheL2 classroom: Social£ ogriitiveactivities,mediating

strategies,and aspectsofsocial

behayioz

loumalclfSecondLangisclge va}'itbrg;5,51-75.

vygotskM

L.S.

_(1987),

TlrecoUected works

ofL.S

5tgotsdy

CNlo1,

1).Thinkmgand speaking. New Ybrk,N"N}

Plenum ftess.

Zimmerrnan,B.J.,& Kitsantas,A,

_(1999).

Ac(luiiingwriting revisien skill:Shiftinglfomptoeesstooutcorne

sereregulatory _goals..lorml

ofEkibecationuI

Rsychology91(2),241-250.

Zimmerman,B.J.,& Msemberg,R

_(1997).

Researthforthe

future:

Becoming a seliregulated writer:A social cognitive_perspecuive.CbntenilroraryEduatioualPsychologrt22,73-1O1,

Appendix

Promptsforwnting[[bsk1and WrttingTask2

WritingTtisk1:Ifycucould travelbackintimetomeet afamouspersonffomhistoryuwhat _personwould _youlike tomeet? Usespecificreasons and examples tosupport _yourcboice.

wrting[fask2:Ifyou could meet a famousentertainerer athlete,wbo would that

be,

and whY? Usespecific

reasons and examples tesxpport yourchoioe

Acknowledgment

Iam _gratefu1toAlisterCumming Meni11Swaig Suzanne Hidi,CharlenePolio,NinaSpada,and Wataru

Suzukifortheirvaluable commerrts and suggestions.Iwould 1iketothanktheeditorand thereviewers fortheir

insightfttland incisivefeedback.Iam solely responsibie forthe_poshienstakeriand any errors

that

may reniain in