A modified dictogloss for helping learners remember L2 academic English formulaic sequences for use in later writing

English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

English for Specific Purposes journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/esp/default.asp

A modified dictogloss for helping learners remember L2 academic English formulaic sequences for use in later writing Seth Lindstromberg a, *, June Eyckmans b,1, Rachel Connabeer a, 2, 3 a

Hilderstone College, St Peters Road, Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2JW, United Kingdom Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Ghent University, Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45, Mercator B, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online xxx

It is widely accepted that ambitious learners of a L2, including learners of EAP, need productive knowledge of many conventionalized phrases, or formulaic sequences (FSs). Although it is difficult for the post-childhood learner to acquire these FSs without aid, the range of relevant pedagogical techniques known to be effective and efficient is unimpressive. We report an experimental investigation of the potential of a dictogloss exercise modified to direct the attention of EAP learners to 14 FSs in a journal abstract. Learners were randomly assigned to two treatment groupsdstandard dictogloss and modified dictogloss. In post-treatment written reconstructions of the abstract, the learners who had done the modified dictogloss used significantly more of the targeted FSs than did the learners in the standard dictogloss condition. The modified dictogloss requires less class time than the standard dictogloss and only slightly more teacher preparation. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Formulaic sequences Dictogloss Focus on forms Academic writing Attention direction Highlighting

1. Introduction This article is about a way of helping L2 learners to recall and use the written forms of phrasal expressions, or ‘formulaic sequences’ (FSs), that are conventional in English academic texts. The FSs we refer to are strings of words which co-occur with greater than chance frequency and whose meaningfulness is not open to serious doubt, unlike word strings such as in the which are frequent but semantically incomplete (cf., Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, & Maynard, 2008). Since we are concerned with academic texts, some kinds of FS (e.g., formal discourse organizers and various syntactic types of collocation that comprise at least one Graeco-Latinate content word) are more relevant than others, such as situational clichés, proverbs, oral fluency devices, and figurative idioms. Research has made it clear that knowing a very large number of relatively frequent L2 FSs is a key enabler of fluent comprehension and production (for summaries of research see Boers & Lindstromberg, 2012; Henriksen, 2013; Peters, 2014; Schmitt & Carter, 2004; and chapters in Barfield & Gyllstad, 2009, and articles in Polio, 2012). It has been found that learners who are able accurately and appropriately to deploy significant numbers of L2 phrasal expressions are viewed by others as being relatively proficient (Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, & Demecheleer, 2006; Dai & Ding, 2010; Schmitt, 2008, p. 340; Stengers, Boers, Housen, & Eyckmans, 2011). However, with respect to written academic English (AE) it has been found that * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 (0)1843 869171 (office). E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Lindstromberg), [email protected] (J. Eyckmans), [email protected] (R. Connabeer). 1 Tel.: þ32 474 32 07 79 (office). 2 Tel.: þ44 (0)1843 869171 (office). 3 Rachel Connabeer carried out the pilot study while she was at Universität Tübingen. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.08.002 0889-4906/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

13

the type of FS can matter: Specifically, less frequent FSs and FSs containing less frequent words are relatively impressive (Bestgen & Granger, 2014; Crossley, Cai, & McNamara, 2012). It also matters whether individual FSs are over- or under-used in AE writing (Bestgen & Granger, 2014; Crossley et al., 2012). It has been argued that good knowledge of relevant L2 FSs facilitates integration into a social group (Wray, 2002), such as an academic community (Jones & Haywood, 2004). Overall, productive knowledge of many L2 FSsdwhen this includes knowing when and where to use themdis thought to be beneficial in the sphere of academic writing (e.g., Coxhead, 2008; Coxhead & Byrd, 2007; Hyland, 2012; Peters & Pauwels, 2015). Notoriously, though, post-childhood learners have trouble learning and properly using L2 FSs of some types (e.g., Howarth, 1998; Hulstijn & Marchena, 1989; Laufer & Waldman, 2011; Li and Schmitt, 2009; Nesselhauf, 2003; Siyanova & Schmitt, 2008; Stengers, Boers, Housen, & Eyckmans, 2010). For instance, Laufer and Waldman (2011) and Nesselhauf (2003) observed that even advanced learners are liable to misuse collocations, and Levitzky-Aviad and Laufer (2013) found that learners with fairly welldeveloped knowledge of L2 single-word vocabulary use a surprisingly narrow range of L2 FSs. These tendencies have been observed in EAP contexts as well (e.g., Hyland, 2012). Even when learners do try to use L2 FSs in academic writing, the ones they choose are often too informal (Gilquin & Paquot, 2008) or feature erroneous omissions or substitutions of function words (Jones & Haywood, 2004). There are at least four possible origins of these difficulties. First, many of the commonest FSs consist of high frequency words (Martinez & Murphy, 2011); yet to the extent that learners perceive the constituent words of an FS as familiar and understood, they are likely to pay these words reduced attention (cf., Tulving & Kroll, 1995). Second, the boundaries of a FS may not be easy to identify. This is true even in print since typographic demarcation of phrasal expressions is rare, whereas single words are demarcated by spaces. Third, much authentic spoken English confronts learners with FSs whose component words are phonologically weakened (Bybee, 2002, p. 217). Fourth, many FSs are idiomatic (although generally less so in AE), which tends to make comprehension difficult, which in turn hampers retention of formdit being well-established that meaningful forms are easier to recall than ones whose meaning is hazy or unknown. Fortunately, it is well-documented that explicit, intentional teaching of L2 vocabulary can be effective (Hulstijn, 2003; Laufer, 2005, 2006; Nation, 2001; Peters, 2012a, 2012b; Schmitt, 2008; Webb & Kagimoto, 2011); and there is some evidence that this is true for FSs as welldor at least for collocations (Laufer & Girsai, 2008; Nesselhauf, 2003, p. 238; Szudarski & Carter, 2014). However, the number of pedagogical procedures, or exercise types, known to be reliably effective and efficient in bringing about gains in learners’ ability to produce L2 phrasal expressions of any kind is small both regarding general English (for a review, see Boers & Lindstromberg, 2012) and EAP (see Hyland, 2012, pp. 165–166). Let us consider four quantitative studies that cast light on the extent to which explicit teaching of academic FSs results in greater use of those FSs in later writing. Li and Schmitt (2009) report a longitudinal case study of a Chinese MA student’s acquisition of FSs appropriate in AE. Through self reports the student indicated that both incidental exposure (through reading AE texts) and explicit instruction had been effective. However, Li and Schmitt found little evidence that this student’s grades on her essays reflected otherwise apparent improvement in her knowledge of AE FSs. Jones and Haywood (2004) report a study conducted during a ten-week EAP course that included post-instruction essay writing. Unlike the eleven learners in a control group, the ten learners in the experimental group (EGr) were exposed to a number of AE FSs through reading (targeted FSs were typographically highlighted to encourage noticing) and through doing a variety of standard awareness raising exercises (e.g., analyzing targeted expressions in concordance lines) and doing gap-fill exercises in which word initials cued each targeted worddfor instance, th___ ki___ o__ / this kind of). From interviews, lesson observations, and comparison of pre-and post-treatment data Jones and Haywood concluded that the EGr students’ awareness of AE phrasal expressions had increased. However, they found no sign that the EGr instruction led to any general increase in use (correct or not) of AE FSs in later essays. Interestingly, these researchers’ interpretation of participants’ frequent errors in production of the forms of targeted AE FSs was that when encountering one of these forms, the participants had tended to focus on a salient content word and neglect any function words. In a study similar to that of Jones and Haywood (2004) but with a withinsubjects design, Cortes (2006) found that the eight participants’ awareness of FSs increased but that post-instruction production of targeted FSs (N ¼ 35) was “rare and uneven” (p. 398). Peters and Pauwels (2015) report another broad quasiexperimental replication of Jones and Haywood (2004) but with important refinements such as a posttest identical to the pretest and, again, a within-subjects design. In the Peters and Pauwels study 29 Dutch-speaking university students were taught 24 target phrasal expressions over a period of three weeks via a range of techniques similar to those featuring in Jones and Haywood’s (2004) study. Three instructional conditions were defined by the type(s) of exercise by means of which the 24 FSs (eight per study) were targeted: (1) awareness raising and recognition, (2) cued recall gap fill exercises, and (3) exercises of all three types. Assessment was based on written tests and on participants’ use of targeted FSs in written assignments. These researchers found that explicit teaching of the targeted FSs was effective but apparently much more so with respect to later recognition than autonomous use in writing; a tentative conclusion was that cued recall exercises may be more effective than exercises focusing on awareness raising and recognition. Each of the studies just summarized included exercises of multiple types. The study we report below investigates two versions of a single type, the so-called ‘dictogloss’. Let us consider this exercise and its potential to help students move from receptive knowledge of targeted AE FSs to using them in writing. 2. The dictogloss in L2 research For about a generation there has been strong interest among L2 researchers in finding and evaluating classroom procedures likely to cause learners more or less autonomously to focus on ‘form’ (FonF) in the midst of communication. Such

14

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

procedures have been contrasted with ones likely to cause learners to focus on selected ‘forms’ under explicit teacher direction. Because FonF is thought to occur in the context of meaning-focused language use, procedures intended to induce FonF avoid overt targeting of specific forms either by teachers or by materials writers (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998). In contrast, so-called ‘focus-on-forms’ procedures target particular forms largely in isolation from meaningful context. Prominent investigators of FonF procedures have tended to be interested in the Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), whereby output is an important engine of L2 acquisition. A bare bones formulation of this hypothesis runs as follows (Swain & Lapkin, 1995, pp. 372–73): “In producing the L2, a learner will on occasion become aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to her his/ her attention either by external feedback (e.g., clarification requests) or internal feedback). Noticing a problem ‘pushes’ the learner to modify his/her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic mode of processing than might occur in comprehension.” A procedure figuring in a number of (quasi)experimental studies of the effects of FonF and pushed output is the dictogloss (Read, 1996; Thornbury, 2006; Wajnryb, 1990). In essence, the dictogloss is a dictation in which learners are not given enough time to write the targeted text while the teacher is reading it out. However, learners do hear the text read out four or more times, which gives them multiple opportunities to take notes. Then, using their notes and working in pairs, the learners try to reconstruct the target text from memory.1 The dictogloss has shown good potential to promote both FonF and pushed output (e.g., Kowal & Swain, 1994, 1997; Malmqvist, 2005; Nabei, 1996; Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2001). (But see Hornby-Uribe, 2010; Lim & Jacobs, 2001; Murray, 1994 for accounts of some negative findings.) Overall, it seems that few easy-to-implement exercises are more likely than the dictogloss to push learners toward accurate production of language that is beyond their current level (cf., Polio & Williams, 2009, p. 488). It is mainly during the text reconstruction stage of the dictogloss that one may expect the most ‘language-related episodes’ (LREs), that is to say, student-to-student task-related questions and comments about language (e.g., Leeser, 2004; Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2001). Much of the research literature on LREsdof which Fortune and Thorp (2001) provide an overview that is still usefuldconcentrates on the potential of LREs to trigger positive development of students’ interlanguagedwhere the term interlanguage refers mainly to syntax, function words (especially articles) and, most of all, verb grammar (e.g., Bastarrechea, García Mayo, & Leeser, 2014; Gallego, 2010; García Mayo, 2002; Kuiken and Vedder, 2002; Kowal & Swain, 1994, 1997; Kuiken & Vedder, 2002; Leeser, 2004; Nabei, 1996; Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Uludag & Vanpatten, 2012; Vanpatten, Inclezan, Salazar, & Farley, 2009; Williams & Evans, 1998). Practice-oriented methodologists too have shown a very strong tendency to link the dictogloss with grammar (e.g., Read, 1996; Smith, 2012; Thornbury, 2006; Wajnryb, 1990). Additionally, researchers interested in the dynamics of pairwork have used the dictogloss as a means of generating intra-pair interactions so that these can be studied in their own right (e.g., Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2007). Even though L2 researchers have frequently observed that a substantial proportion of LREs arising in a dictogloss are about lexis (e.g., Dobao, 2014; Fortune, 2005; García Mayo, 2002; LaPierre, 1994 [as summarized by Swain, 1998]; Kim & McDonough, 2008; Kowal & Swain, 1994; Leeser, 2004; Murray, 1994; Nabei, 1996), few studies have focused on the dictogloss as a means of promoting vocabulary learning. Kim (2008), for example, reported a study in which some participants did a dictogloss individually while others did it collaboratively in pairs. Kim found that the collaborators performed better than the other learners on a posttest that probed understanding of targeted single words. A study reported by Donesch-Jezo (2011) focused on modal verbs used to express uncertainty and on single words such as perhaps. All participants worked with the same written texts. One group studied versions of the texts in which the targeted expressions were underlined and highlighted in color. These participants received no explicit explanation of form or function of the targeted items. Participants in a second group worked with the same version of the texts but they received explicit explanation of the grammar. Participants in the third group initially encountered the targeted texts aurally through doing a dictogloss. They never viewed the written versions in which targeted items were highlighted. All three groups also worked with the texts in other, standard ways (the same ways for each group); for example, the texts were discussed and gapfill exercises were done. On delayed tests of knowledge of the targeted expressions, it was the participants in the dictogloss group who did the best. There were no tests of statistical significance, however. Yuan (2014) compared the effectiveness of three versions of the dictogloss for teaching L2 Chinese time expressions (for more about this study see Section 3.2 below). However, we have yet to find a study reporting on the use of the dictogloss for fostering learning of FSs. One reason we thought that the dictogloss might be apt for this purpose is that in doing a dictogloss exercise learners engage with whole targeted phrases as they occur in a complete text. These two features seem important given that exercises that require learners to reassemble split FSs can too often have the result that learners remember not the most conventional combination of words or the combination that relates to a stipulated text or situation but rather a so-called ‘cross-association’ of the prompt with a distracter. Boers, Demecheleer, Coxhead, and Webb (2014) describe a study in which learners who had written correct conventional forms (e.g., take an approach) in a pretest later wrote atypical forms (e.g., give an approach) after having done exercises in which they were to underline the best word among multiple options for completing a collocation, for example: “. give/run/take an approach” (Boers et al., 2014, p. 65). Moreover, engaging with whole FSs in a full context, as in a dictogloss, may help learners develop an awareness of the contexts that these FSs suit. But, we were also aware of the frequent finding that learners doing a standard dictogloss are quite likely to ignore

1

For more procedural detail see Read (1996) and Thornbury (2006, pp. 80–82).

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

15

forms that their teacher (or a researcher) had thought would be most useful for them to notice and learn (e.g., García Mayo, 2002; Kowal & Swain, 1994, 1997; Nabei, 1996; Storch, 1997; Swain, 1998)dwhich may be a feature of collaborative language learning activities generally (cf., Williams, 1999). Hence, we decided to test a version of the dictogloss which includes a form of highlighting. In general, highlighting (by italicizing or underlining, for instance) falls under the heading of ‘input enhancement’ (Sharwood-Smith, 1991) intended to increase the likelihood that particular L2 items will be noticed, in the sense of Schmidt’s (2001) noticing hypothesis. We know of two small scale experimental investigations of the effect of highlighting on the retention of targeted FSs, Peters (2012b) and Szudarski and Carter (2014). Taken together, their results suggest that some forms of highlighting can help learners notice and remember FSs selected for targeting. Finally, our experiences with the dictogloss suggested to us that it is particularly likely to appeal to serious, well-motivated learners whose proficiency in English is at least moderately good (see also Gallego, 2014). As the three of us have occasion to teach academic English, we decided to run our dictogloss experiment with learners of EAP and to use an academic textdspecifically, a journal abstract. An abstract seemed a good choice since abstract writing is a useful skill for would-be scholars to acquire. (Additional reasons are given in the following section.) Our research question was as follows: Is a modification of the dictogloss which includes highlighting of written forms better than the standard dictogloss as a means of helping relatively proficient learners of academic English (AE) use targeted AE FSs when they subsequently reconstruct a targeted journal abstract in writing, and when time on task is no more than for a standard dictogloss? 3. The experiment 3.1. Participants The participants were Dutch-speaking students aged 20 to 23 majoring in English and an additional foreign language in the Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication at Ghent University, Belgium. The students were enrolled in an English writing course that included academic writing. Participants’ level of proficiency in English was estimated as C1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF). This corresponds to an IELTS score of 7–8. Fifty-eight students participated in the first session, which included the pretest, the dictogloss, and the immediate posttest (i.e., the first text reconstruction). Of these students, 27 formed an experimental group (EGr) that experienced the modified dictogloss, and 31 formed a comparison group (CGr) that experienced the standard dictogloss. Forty-seven students (nEGr ¼ 20, nCGr ¼ 27) participated in the second session, which included the delayed posttest and elicitation of feedback. Before the experiment now being reported, we ran a pilot study with 31 students at a German university (nEGr ¼ 16, nCGr ¼ 15). In the pilot the EGr solidly outperformed the CGr, with the observed standardized difference between the group means (Cohen’s d) being 0.68, which is generally indicative of a medium-large effect likely to be of practical significance. Using the free statistical power calculator G*power (http://www.gpower.hhu.de/en.html; Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007), we estimated that a new experiment would have good power to detect an effect of about d ¼ 0.68 (a ¼ .05, twosided), given that we anticipated having more than double the number of participants. In the event, participant numbers were smaller than expected, especially for the delayed test. 3.2. Materials For the dictogloss we used a 120 word text, given just below. It is a slightly tweaked version of the abstract of an article by Jackson and Gray (2010) in the British Journal of Criminology (used with the authors’ permission). The 14 FSs of interest are underlined, although the text as the participants saw it was free of any kind of highlighting. In the comparison condition participants’ attention was never intentionally drawn to these phrases more than to any other parts of the text. Fear of crime is widely seen as an unqualified social ill, yet might some level of emotional response constitute a natural defence against crime? Our methodology differentiates between a dysfunctional worry that erodes quality of life and a functional worry that motivates vigilance and routine precaution. A London-based survey shows that one-quarter of those individuals who said they were worried about crime also viewed their worry as something akin to a problemsolving activity: they took precautions; these precautions made them feel safer; and neither the precautions nor the worries reduced the quality of their lives. Fear of crime can therefore be helpful as well as harmful: some people are both able and willing to convert their concerns into constructive action. We chose to use a journal abstract since a good one tells a satisfyingly complete story in just a few sentences. This abstract was chosen for four reasons: First, judging by the literature and going by our own experience, its length seemed suitable for a dictogloss. Second, in many fields abstracts are generally about this long, and we wanted to use a text representative of its genre. Third, the text seemed likely to be comprehensible to non-specialists. Lastly, targetable FSs are relatively evenly spaced throughout the textda desirable feature for the experimental condition, as will be seen. The 14 FSs were chosen by two other criteria besides that of spread-out spacing: No targeted FS should be restricted to criminology; also, each targeted FS should be at least relatively fixed, in order to simplify scoring. Note that we make no claim that the FSs we targeted are more useful for learners of EAP to know than other FSs that occur in this text or other suitable texts. The aim of our study was to compare two instructional methods rather than to rank FSs as targets for teaching.

16

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

For the dictogloss itself, each member of the CGr group was given a blank sheet of paper on which to write the abstract while doing the standard dictogloss. In the EGr treatment, instead of a blank sheet of paper each participant received a worksheet on which the targeted FSs were given in the order of their occurrence. On this sheet, each FS was shown centered and on its own line. These FSs are shown a few lines below. The slashes indicate where the line breaks were on the worksheet. Here, the underlining indicates nontargeted expressions included on the worksheet merely to help EGr students complete the reconstruction more quickly. These expressions were not taken into account in scoring. Note that neither the numbering, nor the underlines, nor the slashes were present on the actual worksheets. is widely seen as1 / social ill2 / emotional response3 / differentiates between4 / quality of life5 / routine precaution6 / one-quarter of those individuals / about crime / viewed...as7 / akin to8 / took precautions9 / made them feel10 / neither...nor11 / their lives / helpful as well as harmful12 / both able and willing to13 / constructive action14 Yuan (2014) found that on several measures participants in a dictogloss group who were provided with an outline of the target text outperformed two other groups who also did the dictogloss but without the outline. Assuming that the EGr worksheet would serve as an outline to some extent, we expected the EGr participants to complete the dictogloss text reconstruction relatively accurately and probably more quickly, as indeed they did. We hoped also that the EGr participants would experience less of the anxiety that some learners report feeling during a dictogloss, especially in the beginning. Additionally, we hypothesized that presenting the targeted FSs on the worksheet in isolation from context would help the participants to notice them. However, we appreciated that there was another possibility: Participants might be so intent on hearing words not on the worksheet that they might give reduced attention to the words already there. The pilot of the experiment mentioned above included all of the principal stages of the experiment being reported, including elicitation of feedback from participants about what they had thought of the exercises they had experienced. One thing we learned from this feedback was that some participants wished that they had been reminded, just before the delayed test, about the content of the abstract in more detail than they had been. Because we wanted this reconstruction to be a fair test of participants’ productive memory of forms rather than of content, we decided that in the planned experiment it would be helpful to remind participants of the content of the original abstract by showing them a Dutch translation of it just before the delayed test. Some participants in the pilot also said that they wished they had been able to understand the abstract better prior to the treatment, and we supposed that the L1 translation would be helpful in this regard too. Not surprisingly, a number of the targeted English FSs include at least one Latinate word (e.g., social ill). Although some of these words have Dutch equivalents that are (partly) similar in form (e.g., sociaal probleem), Dutch also affords equivalents with Germanic words. We supposed that using these more Germanic alternatives would lessen the chance that the Dutch version of the abstract would facilitate guessing of the forms of the English targets or prompt their recall too directly. Hence, the Dutch version of the abstract included maatschappelijk probleem for social ill rather than the synonymous phrase sociaal probleem. The Dutch version of the abstract is given just below, with the Dutch equivalents of the targeted English expressions underlined. The English target FSs are given in brackets; however, the participants saw the translation with no underlining and no interpolated English. Angst voor criminaliteit wordt algemeen beschouwd als [is widely seen as] een volslagen maatschappelijk probleem [social ill], maar zou een bepaalde graad van gevoelsmatige reactie [emotional response] een natuurlijke bescherming kunnen vormen tegen misdaad? In onze methodologie wordt een onderscheid gemaakt tussen [differentiates between] een dysfunctionele angst die de kwaliteit van het leven [quality of life] aantast en een functionele angst die leidt tot waakzaamheid en het nemen van normale voorzorgsmaatregelen [routine precaution]. Een enquête die werd uitgevoerd in Londen toont dat een kwart van de ondervraagden die beweerden bang te zijn voor criminaliteit hun angst zagen als [viewed as] iets verwant aan [akin to] een probleemoplossende activiteit. Ze namen voorzorgsmaatregelen [took precautions]. Deze voorzorgsmaatregelen gaven hen een veiliger gevoel [made them feel] en noch de voorzorgsmaatregelen noch [neither . nor] de angst tastten hun levenskwaliteit aan. Angst voor criminaliteit kan dus zowel voordelig als nadelig [helpful as well as harmful] zijn. Sommige mensen zijn ertoe in staat en zijn bereid [both able and willing to] om hun zorgen om te zetten in nuttige daden [constructive action]. As mentioned, when L1 FSs are different in form from targeted English FSs, there is lowered risk that an L1 translation will cue recall or guessing of the English forms. However, in cases where all available L1 FSs are formally similar to the English targets (as might be the case when L1 is a Romance language), it may be a good idea to help students recall the gist of a targeted text not by showing a L1 translation but by presenting keywords and/or summarizing the text in English (while avoiding use of the targeted English FSs). This tactic would be a sensible default whenever students do not share an L1. 3.3. Procedure The experiment started with a short introduction on abstract writing after which the participants were presented with the abstract. After reading it, participants were asked to put a box around any word or phrase they did not know and to put a wavy line underneath any they felt they understood but thought they did not actively use. These sheets of paper were collected, as they were to serve as pre-tests of the participants’ familiarity with the target vocabulary. Next, any vocabulary questions were dealt with in plenary with the help of the Dutch translation of the abstract, which was projected onto a screen. Then, participants were randomly assigned either to the comparison (standard dictogloss) group or to the experimental (modified

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

17

Table 1 The performance of the comparison group (CGr) and experimental group (EGr) in the two post-dictogloss reconstructions of the abstract. Test

Target phrases reproduceda Group n, Mean (Mn), SD CGr

EGr

Immediate Delayed

31n, 6.56Mn, 2.43SD 27n, 2.69, 1.92

27n, 8.54Mn, 2.21SD 20n, 3.75, 1.49

Raw mean difference (MD) & MD as a percentage of the mean CGr score

1.973MD, 30% 1.065MD, 40%

Length of abstracts in wordsb Mean, Range

Immediate Delayed a b

CGr

EGr

81.13Mn, 36–118 48.74Mn, 13–98

89.48Mn, 43–124 61.5Mn, 17–99

8.35MD, 10% 12.76MD, 26%

The maximum score possible was 14. Original words ¼ 120. All words written by participants were counted, regardless of correctness or aptness.

dictogloss) group. However, all the students did the exercise at the same time in the same room. In the comparison group (CGr) the participants were provided with a blank sheet of paper whereas the students in the experimental (EGr) were each given a copy of the worksheet described above. All participants were informed that the aim of the exercise was to reconstruct the English abstract as accurately as possible. The researcher read the text out loud a first time, and while she was doing so the participants, as per instruction, listened but did not write. The moment the researcher finished reading out the text, participants noted down on paper words and phrases that they recalled. This sequencedlistening followed by note-taking from memorydwas repeated once. The participants then heard the text read out a third time and were permitted to make notes as they listened. A fourth reading also involved simultaneous note-taking. In each of these four phases of text reconstruction the participants were allowed to pool their knowledge when they were reconstructing the text. It was observed that the participants of the experimental group did not need the fourth reading in order to perfect their reconstructions whereas the participants of the comparison group clearly did. When they had finished their reconstructions, the participants’ note sheets were collected. Students were now instructed to move around the room, stretch, touch their toes, waggle their hands and feet, and so on for two and a half minutes. Participants in both groups were then provided with a second sheet of paperdblank for both groupsdon which they were asked to reconstruct the text in writing as accurately as possible, and to work individually while doing so. This reconstruction is referred to as the ‘immediate test’ in the results section. At the end of the first session, the participants were asked how they had experienced the dictogloss exercise. They were instructed to rate the exercise regarding its potential helpfulness in learning English phrases on a scale of 1–7 (1 lowest, 7 highest). They were also asked whether they had a particular feeling about any part of the exercise and if they thought the exercise had good potential to promote learning of any other aspect of English. In session two, a week later, participants were again asked to rewrite the abstract from memory. This reconstruction will be referred to as the ‘delayed test’ in the results section below. In order to jog participants’ memories before this final posttest, the Dutch translation of the English abstract was projected onto a large screen, for one minute, for all to see. The finished reconstructions were collected for assessment. 3.4. Results To diagnose the groups’ knowledge of the lexis in the abstract before the dictogloss the instructor gave each participant a copy of the abstract on a sheet of paper on which, as mentioned above, they marked English words they did not know and ones they thought they knew but did not themselves use. For the EGr and the CGr the mean numbers of words unknown and known-but-not-used are as follows: unknown, 0.78EGr vs 0.55CGr; unused, 1.59EGr vs 0.97CGr. From this we concluded that in terms of lexis the text was not difficult for either group of students and that compared to the CGr members the EGr members did not begin the experiment with greater familiarity with the lexis. As shown in Table 1, in both posttests the EGr participants used more targeted FSs on average than the CGr participants did, and the EGr texts were also longer on average. It can be seen from the percentages in the rightmost column of Table 1 that the superiority of the EGr over the CGr was greater in terms of use of targeted FSs than in the word count of the abstracts. We focus now on participants’ use of the targeted FSs in the two posttests. Following the recommendation of Keselman, Othman, and Wilcox (2013) we tested both sets of immediate test scores using the Anderson–Darling (AD) normality test (a ¼ .20), finding: p ¼ .321 and p ¼ .166. Because one of the score sets was flagged as possibly nonnormal, we tested the statistical significance of the EGr group advantage in the immediate posttest with a robust, bootstrap version of the Welch– Satterthwaite t-test, which is based on raw means but does not assume equal variances: t ¼ 3.231, p ¼ .002.2 The observed

2 This procedure (set to 9999 bootstrap replications) was run on the statistical freeware R (http://www.R-project.org/.) using the ‘yuenbt’ function provided by Wilcox (2012). Because one score set had the appearance of nonnormality, we checked our results using an even a more robust version of the bootstrap t-test, one based on the 10% trimmed mean: t ¼ 2.878, p ¼ .006. (For all significance tests, a ¼ .05, two-sided.) Note that a bootstrap is not associated with degrees of freedom.

18

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

effect size was d ¼ 0.845 for which the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) is [0.303, 1.380].3 The lower limit of this CI is consistent with a small effect that might still be of practical significance (Grissom & Kim, 2012, pp. 127–130) while the upper limit is consistent with a very large effect indeed. However, our prime concern was the result of the delayed posttest. Here, neither score set was red-flagged by the AD test (p ¼ .35 and p ¼ .89). However, for consistency we used the same bootstrap ttest as mentioned above, finding: t ¼ 2.064, p ¼ .045; d ¼ 0.621, 95% CI [0.036, 1.221]. As can be seen, a smaller value of d was observed in this delayed posttest than in immediate one. Even so, an effect of d ¼ 0.621 is well above the average of effect sizes observed in studies carried out in education and related behavioral sciences generally (Grissom & Kim, 2012, pp. 127–130). It must be noted though that the lower limit of the CI is consistent with essentially no effect while the upper limit is consistent with a very large one. (This matter will be discussed further below.) For an alternative perspective on the practical significance of our point estimate of effect size for the delayed reconstruction, we re-express it in terms of the ‘probability of superiority’ as 66.7%, which means that if a participant were randomly chosen from the EGr and another from the CGr, and if their scores were compared, and if this procedure were repeated many times, the EGr participant would have the higher score in 66.7% of the comparisons (McGraw & Wong, 1992; Grissom & Kim, 2012, pp. 149–165). 3.5. Participant feedback Recall that participants were all together in the same room and that the feedback was supposed to be anonymous. It transpired that the rating form of the two groups of students became mixed together. For this reason we summarize the ratings for both groups combined (N ¼ 59). The distribution of the ratings is as follows: 11d22d33d418d529d5.51d64d71, where each superscript is a rating and the frequency of the rating is in normal font (median ¼ 5, median absolute deviation ¼ 0.74). Since 35 of 59 (nearly 60%) of the ratings were 5 or above and only 6 (10%) were 3 or less, it seems that both types of dictogloss were felt to be at least somewhat useful. Of the 59 participants, 27 commented verbally that they thought the exercise was likely to be useful for learning vocabulary and/or multiword expressions. The next largest category of positive comments includes ones relating more or less clearly to abilities and skills that interpreters need to a high degree (e.g., “listening þ concentrating þ training future interpreteurs [sic]” and, perhaps, “working memory”). In the pilot study, comments made by the EGr participants were, on average, more positive than comments made by CGr participants. 4. Summary, discussion and conclusion An experiment was carried out to compare the effectiveness of the standard dictogloss and a modified dictogloss as a means of helping EAP learners remember and use encountered L2 AE FSs. Because the EGr participants had the advantage of a worksheet listing phrases occurring in the abstract, they needed less time to complete the dictogloss task. Even having spent less time on task, they outperformed the CGr participants by a significant margin on both posttests. We have mentioned that many FSs comprise high-frequency words (Martinez & Murphy, 2011), which means that a large part of learning these items consists not so much in learning new words as in strengthening bonds among words that are already known. The catch here is that, as mentioned earlier, learners may tend to pay more attention to unfamiliar words than to familiar ones. Most of the FSs targeted in our experiment include one or more words likely to be familiar on account of their relatively high frequency. We supposed that a focus on forms exercise would be more likely than a FonF exercise to cause students to notice in detail the composition of such expressions. Our main result suggests that this speculation is tenable, in line with findings cited earlier which indicate that focus on forms should be part of L2 instruction with regard to vocabulary learning (e.g., Laufer, 2005, 2006; Nation, 2001). More specifically, the modified dictogloss may deserve a place in an EAP teacher’s armory of exercises suitable for teaching AE FS. It seems likely that this dictogloss would be particularly effective with EAP students (or, indeed, with students of any L2 for academic purposes), since the motivation of EAP students to write naturally phrased texts seems likely to be comparatively high. Although our results suggest that the modified dictogloss shows promise, the CI for the point estimate of effect size stemming from our delayed test data is very wide. To obtain a more precise and more credible estimate of the effect of the modified dictogloss on FS learning (as compared to the standard dictogloss) it would be necessary to replicate our study with new participants and new FSs as well. If new groups of participants were as small as they usually are in L2 research, then it would be necessary to stage multiple replication studies (followed up by statistical meta-analysis). Hopefully, time will tell whether our study is indeed replicated and whether new estimates of effect size accumulate. As one partial replication, it might be illuminating to compare the modified dictogloss not with the standard dictogloss but with a different type of text reconstruction exercise. Further, we can conceive of elaborations of the modified dictoglossdones incorporating additional techniques of attention directiondthat might show an even greater advantage over the standard dictogloss as a means of teaching AE FSs expressions while still requiring no more class time than the standard dictogloss does. However, an issue which is at least as worthy of researchers’ attention is the extent to which the modified dictogloss leads EAP learners to use the targeted FSs autonomously, or at least under freer conditions than seen in our study, after a lapse of time greater than one week.

3

Confidence intervals were calculated using Cumming’s ESCI software (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/psy/research/projects/esci).

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

19

Finally, there is the matter of how the modified dictogloss may feature in on-going instruction. One option is for the teacher, or learners, to choose (from published sources) target texts that recycle FSs that occur in texts previously studied. A complementary option is to use texts that include new FSs which have been identified as particularly common either in AE generally or in a given discipline or field. An additional option is to use (pastiches of) learner texts. If these texts do not include enough well-formed and appropriately used FSs, the teacher may ensure that enough suitable FSs are present by reformulating any nonoptimal FSs used by the learner-authors or by inserting other FSs at appropriate points. Acknowledgments We are grateful to Tessa Woodward for proofreading and to the editor and the reviewers for helping us to make this a better article. References Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings (pp. 91-116). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Barfield, A., & Gyllstad, H. (2009). Researching collocations in another language: Multiple interpretations. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Bastarrechea, M., García Mayo, M. P., & Leeser, M. (2014). Porta Linguarum, 22, 7-22. Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S. (2014). Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 28-41. Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., Coxhead, A., & Webb, S. (2014). Gauging the effectiveness of exercises on verb-noun collocations. Language Teaching Research, 18, 50-70. Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245-261. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention studies formulaic sequences in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83-110. Bybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multi-word sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 215-221. Cortes, V. (2006). Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example from a writing intensive history class. Linguistics and Education, 17, 391-406. Coxhead, A. (2008). Phraseology and English for academic purposes. Challenges and opportunities. In F. Meunier, & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in language learning and teaching (pp. 149-161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 129-147. Crossley, S., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. (2012). Syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and automatic n-gram approaches to assessing essay quality. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 214-219). Palo Alto, CA: The AAAI Press. Marco Island, Florida. May 23–25, 2012. Dai, Z., & Ding, Y. (2010). Effectiveness of text memorization in EFL learning of Chinese students. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 71-87). New York: Continuum. Dobao, P. (2014). Meaning oriented tasks such as dictogloss tend to elicit more lexical than grammatical LREs. Language Teaching Research, 18, 497-520. Donesch-Jezo, E. (2011). The role of output & feedback in second language acquisition: A classroom-based study of grammar acquisition by adult English language learners. ESUKA–JEFUL, 2, 9-28. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. J. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic sequences in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375-396. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. Fortune, A. (2005). Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14, 21-38. Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks. Language Awareness, 10, 143-160. Gallego, M. (2010). Focus on form through a dictogloss task: Exploring its effects on the acquisition of the Spanish present subjunctive in complement clauses. PhD diss. Layfayette, IN: Purdue University. Gallego, M. (2014). Second language learners’ reflections on the effectiveness of dictogloss: A multi-sectional, multi-level analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 33-50. García Mayo, M. P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156-175. Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty. Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 3, 41-61. Grissom, R., & Kim, J. (2012). Effect sizes for research: Univariate and multivariate applications (2nd ed.). Hove, UK: Routledge. Henriksen, B. (2013). Research on L2 learners’ collocational competence and development: A progress report. Eurosla Monographs, Series 2. Creative Commons. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use (pp. 29-56). Hornby-Uribe, A. (2010). Using the dictogloss in the high school foreign language classroom: Noticing and learning new grammar. PhD Diss. Austin: University of Texas. Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19, 24-44. Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349-381). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hulstijn, J., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241-255. Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150-169. Jackson, J., & Gray, E. (2010). Functional fear and public insecurities about crime. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 1-22. Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 269-292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Keselman, H., Othman, A., & Wilcox, R. (2013). Preliminary testing for normality: Is this a good practice? Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 12(2). Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/jmasm/vol12/iss2/2 Kim, Y.-J. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114-130. Kim, Y.-J., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211-234. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73-93.

20

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How we can promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson, & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284-309) NY: Cambridge University Press. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343358. LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning. MA thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: University of Toronto. Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, M. García-Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook 5 (pp. 223-250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on FormS in second language vocabulary learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 149-166. Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29, 1-23. Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647-672. Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-81. Levitzky-Aviad, T., & Laufer, B. (2013). Lexical properties in the writing of foreign language learners over eight years of study: Single words and collocations. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use (pp. 127-148). Eurosla Monographs, Series 2. Creative Commons. Lim, W. L., & Jacobs, G. (2001). An analysis of students’ dyadic interaction on a dictogloss task. ERIC Document Reproduction Service http://eric.ed.gov/? id¼ED456649 Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 85-102. Malmqvist, A. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14, 128-141. Martinez, R., & Murphy, V. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 267-290. McGraw, K., & Wong, S. (1992). A common language effect size statistic. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 361-365. Murray, H. (1994). Inside dictogloss: An investigation of a small-group writing task. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliqué, 60, 67-84. http://doc.rero.ch/ record/23145/files/67-84_Murraybis.pdf Accessed 25.04.15. Nabei, T. (1996). Dictogloss: Is it an effective language learning task? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 59-74. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED401759.pdf Accessed 03.01.15. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223-242. Peters, E. (2012a). The differential effects of two vocabulary instruction methods on EFL word retention: A study into task-effectiveness. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50, 213-238. Peters, E. (2012b). Learning German formulaic sequences: The effect of two attention-drawing techniques. Language Learning Journal, 40, 65-79. Peters, E. (2014). The effects of repetition and time of post-test administration on EFL learners’ form recall of single words and collocations. Language Teaching Research, 18, 75-94. Peters, E., & Pauwels, P. (2015). Learning academic formulaic sequences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 28-39. Polio, C. (2012). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32. Polio, C., & Williams, J. (2009). Teaching and testing writing. In M. Long, & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 486-517). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Read, J. (1996). Teaching grammar through grammar dictation. Wacana, 4. Papers from the Third ASILE Conference. 11–14 April 1996. University of New South Wales. http://your.usc.edu.au/wacana/4/issue4.html Accessed 27.08.14. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329-363. Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sharwood-Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118-132. Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 429-458. Smith, K. (2012). Dictogloss: A multi-skill task for accuracy in writing through Cooperative Learning. http://tht-japan.org/publications/2011/069-080_smith. pdf Accessed 25.04.15. Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2010). Does ‘chunking’ foster chunk-uptake? In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 99-117) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2011). Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 321-343. Storch, N. (1997). The editing talk of adult ESL learners. Language Awareness, 6, 221-232. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). New York: Newbury House. 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). New York: Cambridge University Press. In http://tht-japan.org/proceedings/2011/069-080_smith.pdf Accessed 13.08.14. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391. 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. 99-118). New York: Longman. Szudarski, P., & Carter, R. (2014). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12092. Early view. Thornbury, S. (2006). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tulving, E., & Kroll, N. (1995). Novelty assessment in the brain and long-term memory encoding. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 387-390. Uludag, O., & Vanpatten, B. (2012). The comparative effects of processing instruction and dictogloss on the acquisition of the English passive by speakers of Turkish. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50, 189-212. Vanpatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 557-575. Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2011). Learning collocations: Do the number of collocates, position of the node word, and synonymy affect learning? Applied Linguistics, 32, 259-276. Wilcox, R. (2012). Modern statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: A practical introduction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Williams, J. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1-48. Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yuan, F. (2014). Focused dictogloss, peer collaboration, and guided reconstruction: A case of time expressions in L2 Chinese. In N. Jiang (Ed.), Advances in Chinese as a second language (pp. 121-140). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.

S. Lindstromberg et al. / English for Specific Purposes 41 (2016) 12–21

21

Rachel Connabeer trained as an EFL teacher in Birmingham in 1998, then worked as an EFL tutor at various German Universities until 2007. She taught business English in Italy until 2010 before moving back to Germany to teach both academic and business English. She now works at Hilderstone College in Kent, England and teaches courses in academic, business, and general English. June Eyckmans is Lecturer of English at the Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication of Ghent University. She obtained her PhD at the Radboud University of Nijmegen on the methodology of L2 vocabulary assessment. Her research interests include cognitive approaches to foreign language learning and the methodology of interpreting and translation assessment. Seth Lindstromberg works mainly on language and methodology courses for non-native-speaking EFL and CLIL teachers. His main research interests are the semantics of English prepositions and the instructed acquisition of conventionalized L2 multiword expressions.