АУТОР(И): Branka L. Milenković
Е-АДРЕСА: branka.milenkovic@filum.kg.ac.rs
DOI: 10.46793/LIPAR72.119M
САЖЕТАК:
Writing in a second language certainly embodies constraints that are not met in L1 writing due to numerous decisions L2 learners make while producing a text. Many researches have shown that L2 writing is largely based on decision-making with relation to form and search for appropriate words which make the writing process even more complex and time-consuming. Therefore, communicating with the readers through the use of metadiscourse poses an addi- tional obstacle in L2 writing. This paper is concerned with the use of metadiscourse markers in L2 student writing at the Department of English language, at the University of Kragujevac in Serbia. In essay writing research we frequently observe quantitative analysis of specific lan- guage items, however, in this research, we attempt to juxtapose the quantifiable metadiscourse items in student writing with their thinking processes and decision-making while composing. Thus, the research correlates three insights, one being the students’ liability to deep writing, which relies on their metacognitive awareness in writing, established through the modified questionnaire of the Inventory of Processes in College Composition (Lavelle and Zuercher 2001) and based on previous research (Milenkovic & Lojanica 2015). Students’ responses are then correlated with the analysis of 33 student essays on behalf of the use of metadiscourse mark- ers based on A model of metadiscourse in academic texts established by Hyland and Tse (2004). Finally, the students’ metacognitive awareness in writing is analyzed through an introspective questionnaire with the aim to yield qualitative responses in relation to their cognitive ability to reflect upon their writing. The results of the study confirm the common belief that using metadiscourse features is a constraint in L2 writing. Evidently there is a disproportion between the metadiscourse items students use in writing with relation to what they believe that they use and students have displayed more metacognitive awareness in relation to interactive resources as opposing to the interactional resources in academic writing. Implications of the results may establish a basis for a modified teaching practice in second language writing instruction with the aim to enhance students’ communicative competence in writing.
КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:
L2 writing, reflective writing, interactive resources, interactional resources, metadiscourse
ЛИТЕРАТУРА:
Selected references:
Ädel 2006: A. Ädel, Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown 1987: D. H. Brown, Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Connor & Mbaye 2002: U. Connor & A. Mbaye, Discourse Approaches to Writing Assessment. Annual of Applied Linguistics Review, 22, USA: CUP.
Council of Europe 2001: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge: CUP.
Harris & Graham 1996: K. R. Harris & S. Graham, Making the Writing Process Work
– Strategies for Composition & Self-Regulation, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Brookline Books.
Grabe & Kaplan 1996: W. Grabe & R. B. Kaplan, Theory and Practice of Writing, An Applied Linguistics Perspective, Addison Wesley: Longman.
Hyland & Tse 2004: K. Hyland, & P. Tse, Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2).
Hyland 2005: K. Hyland, Metadiscourse, New York & London: Continuum. Kellogg 1994: R. T. Kellogg, The Psychology of Writing, New York, Oxford: OUP.
Lavelle 1993: E. Lavelle, Development and validation of an inventory to assess processes in college composition, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 489– 499.
Lavelle & Zuercher 2001: E. Lavelle & N. Zuercher, The writing approaches of university students, Higher Education, 42, 373–391, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Milenkovic & Lojanica 2015: B. Milenkovic & M. Lojanica, Temeljni i proceduralni pristup pisanju na pragu C2 nivoa prema Zajedničkom evropskom referentnom okviru za žive jezike (CEFR), Lipar XVI/58, Faculty of Philology and Arts: Kragujevac, 27–44.
Shaw & Weir 2007: S. D. Shaw & C. J. Weir, Studies in Language Testing: Examining Writing, Cambridge: CUP.
Toumi 2009: N. Toumi, A model for the Investigation of Reflexive Metadiscourse in Resarch Articles, Language Studies Working Papers vol. 1, 64-73, University of Reading.
Waters & Schneider 2010: H. S. Waters & W. Schneider eds., Metacognition Strategy Use, and Instruction, New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Weigle 2002: S. C. Weigle, Assessing Writing, Cambridge: CUP.
Бранка Л. Миленковић / МЕТАКОГНИТИВНА СВЕСТ СТУДЕНАТА У ПРОЦЕСУ
ПИСАЊА: компетенција и перформанса