#AC$"E DA''A--

REFORMULATION, NOTICING
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF L2 ACADEMIC WRITING
INTRODUCTION
The provision of effective and efficient feedback on academic writing is an important part of the role of a teacher of academic writing. It allows the teacher to provide the students with a reader reaction and targeted instruction (Hyland & Hyland 2006, p. 206), whilst attempting to convey an understanding of the expectations of the communities they are writing for (ibid.). My experience, on the English Language Centres pre-sessional course at the University of Bath, however, has been that some students, particularly those with a lower level of proficiency in L2 writing, seem to be less than motivated by feedback on their writing in the form of a correction code, and are often unable to correct errors, perhaps because of insufficient grammatical knowledge to do so (Lee, 1997), a lack of understanding of the terminology of the code (ibid.) or maybe because they prefer to deal with errors in discussion with the teacher, rather than alone. I was keen, therefore, to revisit my feedback methods and to find a way of engaging the students in the learning process whilst being able to transfer implicit knowledge, which is often culturally rich, and which often makes the difference between an L1 and L2 writer. I decided to make use of a model to help them to understand what their writing should resemble if it were to achieve native-like fluency and accuracy in the appropriate academic style.

REFORMULATION OF STUDENTS TEXTS

THE

As I had been working increasingly with student output as a starting point for input, I decided that the model I would use would be a reformulation of their own text that is, a rewrite by me of what they wanted to say but using my knowledge as an L1 writer to express that content in an appropriate way. In seeing their ideas expressed in this

way, the students have the opportunity to notice features of the target genre, whether grammar, lexis and syntax, or the deeper issues of style and cognition. I had been interested in studies which had used this technique (Levenston, 1978; Cohen 1982, 1983; Allwright et al., 1988; Thornbury, 1997; Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Adams, 2003; Yang & Zhang, 2010), and I wanted to see if the students could see the differences between their original text and my reformulation and, if so, what features they would actually notice. I was also keen to see if these features were then put into use in their subsequent attempts at writing. My few attempts at reformulation had been well received by the students and I believed it had validity in terms of their needs. Alexander et al.s comment (2008, p. 8), that the focus of the EAP classroom should be what the student is trying to do in the future rather than what the student can do now, seemed to address the issue of raising awareness of the gap to bridge between their own nonnative and the required native-like performance expected for their future undergraduate and postgraduate courses.

with a native speaker available to guide the student in the noticing phase, which Thornbury (1997, p. 332) refers to as an exercise to ascertain whether input and output are matched or a method to highlight mismatches. Course timetable constraints, however, dictated that there would be no opportunity for a discussion phase, and the aim of this study was to determine whether the students could study both their own and the reformulated texts alone, without guidance, and whether they could notice any mismatches without prompting. If this proved to be the case, it would be a valuable and motivating feedback option, which could empower students in the development of their writing.

ENGAGING

THE STUDENTS IN THE PROCESS

NOTICING

WITHOUT A DISCUSSION STAGE

Noticing is an essential part of the reformulation technique. It is the ability to see where the native-writer text differs from the original, to see what it is that makes the difference, in order to attempt to transform this into linguistic intake and subsequent use. Noticing has been seen as the cornerstone of the whole reformulation strategy (Allwright et al., 1988, p. 238), and many of the reformulation studies done previously have included some form of discussion stage,

As time was short, I planned a small-scale study, to last six weeks, in the third term of the academic year a time when students are becoming acutely aware of achieving the level of writing required for their future courses. The study group consisted of ten students, two undergraduates and eight postgraduates, who were writing with a degree of fluency that demonstrated an awareness of organisation, yet required broadening in terms of vocabulary, consolidating in terms of grammar and developing in terms of academic style. Seven nationalities and a variety of learning backgrounds were represented within the group. I decided to give the students one writing task every week for six weeks, which I then reformulated and gave back to them. The students responded well to the fact that I had taken the time to rewrite their work and readily agreed to take on the follow-up

noticing exercise. The writing tasks were simple essays on subjects familiar to the students, such as family, work and education. After I had reformulated their texts, the noticing tasks took place every week in class, and the students wrote down the differences they were able to see between their own text and mine. I collected and analysed each students notes throughout the six weeks by categorising items noticed into language areas to see if what they had noticed had influenced their writing. They were not required to redraft their original text at this point. What follows is an example excerpt of one students writing, week by week, with my reformulation of that writing, and then the students noticing notes. The complete texts would be too long to include in this paper, but I have included the students feedback comments for the whole texts, in order to give a broader picture of the language features being noticed by the student overall. Indicators of the students country, city or nationality have been removed for anonymity purposes.

Reformulated version by the teacher Week 1 DEB9>7 D85 <1CD DG? 453145C, D9=5 81C 255> 9>3B51C9>7<I C@5>D ?> >?>-5CC5>D91< 13D9F9D95C. C?>C5AE5>D<I, @5?@<5 C55= D? <13; D9=5 6?B D859B 61=9<95C. *538>?<?7I 81C 3?>DB92ED54 D? D89C. Noticing notes from the student Week 1 %2F9?EC<I =I GB9D9>7 81C @??B<I G?B4C 9> ?D85B G?B4C D51385B 81C 7??4 13145=93 G?B4C. *85B5 1B5 C?=5 7B1==1B G51;>5CC CE38 1C @1CC9F5 M G?B4 ?B45B. #I GB9D9>7 9C >?D 49B53D. *?? <?>7. Excerpt from the original text by Student [001] Week 2 *85 =19> 19= 9C D? GB9D5 12?ED D85 B?<5 ?6 (L) 61=9<I G8938 9D 81C 16653D54 D? D85 (L) C?395DI. F9BCD ?6 1<< D85 (L) 61=9<I 81C B1>75 1@@B?H9=1D5<I 4 D? 9 61=9<I =5=25BC. C?>C5AE5>D<I, D85 C?395DI 81C 1> 5HD5>454 61=9<I, D81D ?2F9?EC<I 81@@5>54 9> (L) G5449>7 D85 >E=25B ?6 F9C9D?BC 12?ED 600 D? 1000 @5?@<5. Reformulated version by the teacher Week 2 *85 B?<5 ?6 D85 (L) 61=9<I 81C 9>6<E5>354 (L) C?395DI. *85 (L) 61=9<I 81C DI@931<<I 4 D? 9 =5=25BC. C?>C5AE5>D<I, (L) C?395DI 81C 5HD5>454 61=9<95C, G8938, 1D D9=5C ?6 G5449>7C, 31> =51> 1 D?D1< ?6 600 D? 1000 7E5CDC. Noticing notes from the student Week 2 I 81F5 D? =1;5 =I C5>D5>35C =?B5 C9=@<5. &??B F?312E<1BI. GB1==1B @B?2<5= 9> GB9D9>7 CDBE3DEB5.

EXCERPTS FROM THE WEEKLY WRITING, REFORMULATION AND

NOTICING PROCESS
Excerpt from the original text by Student [001] Week 1 DEB9>7 <1CD D?G 45359D @5?@<5 81F5 255> 253?=5 C@5>D D85B5 D9=5 ?> D89>7C 1B5 >?D 9=@?BD1>D. C?>C5AE5>D<I, @5?@<5 81F5 <13; 9> D85B5 6B55 D9=5 C@1D91<<I G9D8 61=9<I. *85B5 9C C5F5B1< 613D?BC <514 D? <13;9>7 8E=1> D9=5 CE38 1C ?2F9?EC<I D538>?<?7I.

Excerpt from the original text by Student [001] Week 3 *85 19= ?6 D89C GB9D9>7 9C D? 49C3EC ?>5 ?6 D85 29775CD 9CCE5C 9> (L) 12?ED E>5=@<?I=5>D C9DE1D9?>. DEB9>7 <1CD 65G I51BC (L) 7?F5B>=5>D 81C 255> 2531=5 9>3B51C9>7<I G?BB954 12?ED E>5=@<?I=5>D 2531EC5 D85 @5B35>D175 ?6 D85= B?C5 D? =?B5 D85> ?>5 =9<<9?>. Reformulated version by the teacher Week 3 *85 E>5=@<?I=5>D C9DE1D9?> 9C 1 C97>96931>D 9CCE5 9> (L) 1>4, 9> B535>D I51BC, D85 (L) 81C 253?=5 9>3B51C9>7<I 3?>35B>54 12?ED D85 >E=25B ?6 E>5=@<?I54, G8938 81C B9C5> D? =?B5 D81> 1 =9<<9?>. Noticing notes from the student Week 3 K ,?312E<1BI M N29775CDO M NC97>96931>DO, NEB75>DO M N@B?2<5=O, NG9F5>O M N1G1B4O. K *85B5 1B5 C?=5 G51;>5CC ?> GB9D9>7 CDBE3DEB5 M N2E9<DO M N3?>CDBE3D9?>O N19=54O. K +C56E< <9>;9>7 M N?>5 ?6 D85C5O, NEB75>D 13D9?>O, NA>?D85B 9C D85O Excerpt from the original text by Student [001] Week 4 DEB9>7 <1CD DG? 453145C (L) >1D9?>1< 54E31D9?> 81C 255> 45F5<?@54 D85 54E31D9?> CICD5=. *89C 5CC1I G9<< 49C3ECC D81D D85 14F1>D175C 1>4 49C14F1>D175C ?6 54E31D9?> CICD5= 9> (L). Reformulated version by the teacher Week 4 *85 (L) CICD5= 81C 255> E>45B7?9>7 45F5<?@=5>D 9> D85 <1CD DG? 453145C. *89C 5CC1I G9<< 49C3ECC 9DC 14F1>D175C 1>4 49C14F1>D175C.

Noticing notes from the student Week 4 K $5G G?B4C M NE>45B7?9>7O, N3EBB93E<E=O, NCDBE77<5O, N13B?CC 49665B5>D B579?>CO K I <51B>54 D? 1F?9454 D85 C5>D5>35C. Excerpt from the original text by Student [001] Week 5 (535>D<I, 9> (L), 9D 81C 253?=5 1> 5HDB5=5<I 3?>DB?F5BC91< 9CCE5 D81D 9=@B?F9>7 D85 @E2<93 DB1>C@?BD CICD5= 9> D85 =19> 39D95C CE38 1C (L). *85B56?B5, 6?B @EB@?C5C ?6 D89C 5CC1I I G9<< 3?>69>5 D85 49C3ECC9?> D? C?=5 CDB5>7D8C 1>4 G51;>5CC5C ?> D85 CE2:53D ?6 (L) @E2<93 DB1>C@?BD CICD5=. Reformulated version by the teacher Week 5 I=@B?F9>7 D85 @E2<93 DB1>C@?BD CICD5= 9> D85 =19> 39D95C, CE38 1C (L) 81C B535>D<I 253?=5 1> 5HDB5=5<I 3?>DB?F5BC91< 9CCE5 9> (L). *85B56?B5, D89C 5CC1I G9<< 49C3ECC D85 CDB5>7D8C 1>4 G51;>5CC5C ?6 D85 @E2<93 DB1>C@?BD CICD5= 9> D85 3?E>DBI. Noticing notes from the student Week 5 K $5G G?B4C M N2E9<D 1<?>7O, NG945 1F5>E5CO, N@B9F1D5 ?G>5BC89@O, N6?B 9>CD1>35O. K I 494 >?D GB9D5 3?>3<EC9?>. K I 655< =I GB9D9>7 81C 9=@B?F54 9> GB9D9>7 CDBE3DEB5 1>4 G?B4 ?B45B. K *85B5 1B5 CD9<< C?=5 F?312E<1BI G51;>5CC5C. Excerpt from the original text by Student [001] (final) Week 6 (535>D<I, 9> =1>I 3?E>DB95C 1B?E>4 D85 G8?<5 G?B<4, 9D 81C 253?=5 1> 5HDB5=5<I 3?>DB?F5BC91< 9CCE5 D81D >1D9?>1< 851<D8 ?B71>9C1D9?> 81C 255> 4?>5 1 C5F5B1< C395>D9693 1@@B?1385C D? 9=@B?F5 D85 851<D831B5 CICD5=. H?G5F5B, C?=5 3?E>DB95C 81F5 C97>96931>D 6139<9D95C L

I relied on my teaching experience to interpret the comments made by the students in order to categorise them into aspects of language. This student noticed vocabulary and structure, both at sentence and text level. On analysis of the students texts week by week, these features appeared to be reflected in actual performance and the

greatest improvements seemed to be in vocabulary and cohesion, followed by grammatical accuracy and fluency. A brief breakdown of the noticing and actual performance of all the students in the group can be found in Appendix 1, and an overview of this information is represented in Table 1.

Table 1 AD EL;HL?;M E< J>; ?D9?:;D9; E< DEJ?9?D= 7D: 79JK7B FHE=H;II ?D J>; IJK:;DJI\ MH?J?D=, 799EH:?D= JE LE978KB7HO H7D=; 7D: 799KH79O, EH=7D?I7J?ED 7D: 9E>;H;D9;, 7D: =H7CC7J?97B 799KH79O 7D: <BK;D9O, EL;H J>; I?N-M;;A F;H?E: Student Vocabulary range and accuracy ' (DEJ?9;:) 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ) (FHE=H;II C7:;) 3 3 3 Organisation and coherence ' ) Grammatical accuracy and fluency ' )

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3

3 3 3

3 3

3 3 3

OBSERVATIONS
PROCESS

ON THE

Progress in the students writing was measured by analysing the texts in detail for the number of errors occurring in the language areas identified in Table 1. These areas, along with task achievement, correspond to the English Language Centres marking criteria. If there was a reduction in the number of errors of this type in the text overall, then progress was seen to be made.

Table 1 shows that two participants [003] and [005] showed progress in all areas noticed. Three participants [001], [002] and [0010] showed progress in two areas noticed, but also in grammatical accuracy and fluency, which they did not comment on in their noticing feedback. On the other hand, participants [004], [006], [007] and [009] noticed areas of difference but made no apparent progress. These students could have been exercising agency by deciding that they needed other areas of language at this

point in the course, rather than those presented in the reformulated texts (Yang & Zhang, 2010). For example, Student [006] noticed organisation and coherence but made progress in grammatical accuracy and fluency. This student was particularly challenged in grammar and, therefore, could have simply taken in what was required at this stage of acquisition (Johnson 1988, cited by Thornbury, 1997). Student [007] had presented a challenge, being considered somewhat fossilised in his development. Although this student noticed vocabulary, organisation and grammar features, there was no clear evidence of progress in any area. Student [009] had made slow progress in previous terms, attributed partly to a lack of confidence. Of the ten students, four were identified as conscious learners (Cohen, 1982, p. 17), namely students [002], [003], [005] and [0010]. These were students who Cohen would have identified as being very aware of language. All four made progress in all areas noticed. Student [001] made similar progress and, although not readily appearing to be a conscious learner, was a confident communicator. Overall, therefore, six of the ten participants showed progress in at least two areas noticed. Other reasons for not making progress, despite noticing a feature, might be that the gap is too wide between the students ability and the target language; the student concerned might need longer to assimilate the information; the student might be focusing on another area of presumed need; might have become fossilised; or may lack particular confidence in that area. Of added interest in this table, however, is that, out of the six students making progress in grammatical accuracy and fluency, only two actually noticed these features. This might suggest that grammar could be addressed

incidentally through this feedback method. Future research might seek to explore this. Specific features noticed by all included the length of the native texts, almost always proving to be shorter than the students original text, as found by Cohen (1982). It had been a surprise for many of the students that complexity did not necessarily mean lengthy sentences. They had, it seemed, associated advanced writing ability with longer texts. Of significance for me was simply the fact that noticing had taken place and writing progress appeared to have been made. The study cannot claim that one is the result of the other, but there seemed to be enough incidence of progress made in areas noticed to perhaps warrant further investigation. What the current study does show, however, is that, even though the students were asked to notice alone, rather than in a discussion phase, the outcomes of the noticing were similar to previous studies, in terms of the type of student it tended to suit, namely conscious learners (ibid. p. 17), and the area of language that seemed to benefit most, namely cohesion and coherence (ibid.). This suggests that the discussion phase might be an important enhancer of the process but not the gatekeeper to it. The length of the study and the size of the sample are undoubtedly limitations, and reformulation takes a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the teacher, but a post-study group discussion with the students revealed that they had enjoyed the exercise, as had I. They would have preferred more time in the noticing sessions, but they did believe, overall, that their writing had benefited.

TAKING

THE PROCESS FORWARD

CONCLUSION
Finding the optimum feedback strategy is a challenge, and the concepts of reformulation and noticing are not new. I have found, however, that students respond well to this form of feedback at certain times in their writing development. The extent and timing of this input depends, in my experience, on the students willingness and confidence to engage in the process. Reformulation is student-centred, it is scaffolded (Reid, 1994, cited by Tardy, 2006, p. 62), and it exploits the teachers rich store of culturallyinformed writing experience, whilst maintaining the identity and value of the students content and ideas. Retaining their ownership through the content has been a motivating factor for the students. The blend of student and teacher expertise enables the student voice to emerge and the text to be redrafted to align closer to the target academic community both key skills in preparation for university study. As they have become aware of the potential of the skill to notice and have been encouraged to work independently to transfer what is explicit into implicit knowledge (Thornbury, 1997, p. 326), my students have increasingly enjoyed the process. The technique has become a key part of my feedback strategy in the development of L2 academic writing, and, with apparent success without a discussion phase in the noticing, it has become a key part of my students move towards learner independence.

I now incorporate reformulation into my feedback methods, and it is greatly appreciated by the students receiving it. I often only reformulate one paragraph or, for lower-level students, a couple of sentences, as it is a time-consuming process and, in whole-text form, can be overwhelming. The students are now familiar with the method and, as a review exercise at certain intervals in the term, I ask students to redraft their own texts, with an attention to both surface features and style. It has re-energised writing classes and seems to have empowered the students, giving them greater autonomy and agency in the learning process. It has provided a positive, rather than a deficit, approach to feedback and allows the students to access and focus on what they believe they need at any given time. In so doing, the teacher is provided with a valuable insight into the nature of those needs. Several implications for future research have arisen from this study. As conscious learners (Cohen, 1982, p. 17) responded well in terms of progress, an investigation into which student profile is best served by the method could be an area of future study. It would also be interesting to investigate whether nationality or other affective variables influence the outcome. Likewise, greater investigation could be conducted into language proficiency and the optimum L2 proficiency level required in order to optimise the benefit of this feedback method. In addition, longitudinal studies could establish whether attitudes towards reformulation change over time as a result of students becoming more proficient at noticing.

REFERENCES
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347376. Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP Essentials: A teachers guide to principles and practice. Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd. Allwright, R. L., Woodley, M-P., & Allwright, J. M. (1988). Investigating reformulation as a practical strategy for the teaching of academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 9, 23656. Cohen, A. D. (1982). Writing like a native: The process of reformulation. Paper presented at the 16th Annual TESOL Convention, May 16, Honolulu, Hawaii. (REIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED224338). Cohen, A. D. (1983). Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem: The School of Education. Revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 17th Toronto, Ontario, 1520 March 1983. (For related document, see REIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED224338). Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465477. Levenston, E.A. (1978). Error analysis of free composition: The theory and the practice. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 111. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285304. Tardy, C. (2006). Appropriation, ownership, and agency: Negotiating teacher feedback in academic settings. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote noticing. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326335. Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulation and a model text in EFL students writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 464484.

APPENDIX 1
Student [001] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) Academic words; passive voice; word order; the length of the teachers text (Week 2) Sentences need to be more simple; poor vocabulary; grammar for sentence structure (Week 3) Formal vocabulary; collocation; writing structure; useful linking phrases (Week 4) New vocabulary; learned to avoided the sentences learned to be brief? (Week 5) New vocabulary; collocation; didnt write conclusion; structure and word order improved; still some vocabulary weaknesses (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [001]s greatest noticing was in the areas of vocabulary and structure (sentence and whole text). This seems to be reflected in actual performance over the six weeks, in that the greatest improvements were made in vocabulary and cohesion, followed by grammatical accuracy and fluency. Student [002] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) Nominalisation; useful expressions; academic vocabulary; word order; grammar in general (Week 2) Word order; structure; lack of formality; connecting sentences; a need to be more concise (Week 3) Formal vocabulary; collocation; nominalisation (Week 4) Structure; word order; article the; the need for more academic vocabulary and connectors (Week 5) article the; appropriate vocabulary; position of adverbs (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [002]s greatest noticing was in the area of vocabulary, followed by structure. The actual performance over the six weeks, indicated cohesion and organisation first, followed by vocabulary. Grammatical accuracy and fluency improved the least. Student [003] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) Position and use of connectors; vocabulary (synonyms); prepositions (Week 2) Articles; collocation; appropriate vocabulary; nominalisation (Week 3) Formal vocabulary; collocation; nominalisation; use of relative pronouns (Week 4) Relative clauses; nominalisation; appropriate vocabulary; articles (Week 5) Position of generally; conciseness through vocabulary; synonyms; comparison (Week 6) No noticing requested

Student 003s greatest noticing was in the area of grammar (relative clauses/articles/prepositions), vocabulary (synonyms/more formal) and style (nominalisation). The actual performance over the six weeks, indicated greatest achievement in grammar and fluency, followed by cohesion and organisation. A smaller improvement was made in vocabulary range and accuracy. Student [004] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) Shorter and more effective sentences; appropriate words; new vocabulary (Week 2) Appropriate words; grammar (sentence structure); detail (Week 3) Conciseness; new more appropriate vocabulary; grammar (tenses) (Week 4) Word order; wrong words; more appropriate vocabulary; word order; nominalisation (Week 5) Appropriate words; sentence order; grammar (tenses); style of reformulated text (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [004]s greatest noticing was in the area of vocabulary and style. However, actual performance indicates no improvement overall in organisation and cohesion, or grammatical accuracy and fluency, and the level of vocabulary range and accuracy actually dropped at times. This might indicate an example of there being too great a gap in level between the students original text and the teachers reformulated text for the student to benefit from the exercise. Student [005] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) Sentence; word order; vocabulary; conjunctions; linking; conciseness (Week 2) Formality; cohesion; tenses (Week 3) Vocabulary; sentence structure; tense; passive (Week 4) Vocabulary, pronouns, linking, passive (Week 5) Noun phrases; sentence structure (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [005]s greatest noticing was in the areas of sentence structure and lexis, which this particular student associated with conciseness. Actual performance indicated an improvement in vocabulary, followed by cohesion. There was no apparent improvement in grammatical accuracy and fluency.

Student [006] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) Paragraphing; passive; phrases; linking (Week 2) Phrases (collocation); sentence structure; word order (Week 3) Vocabulary range; sentence structure (Week 4) Word order; vocabulary range (Week 5) Noun phrases; vocabulary range; collocation (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [006]s greatest noticing was in the area of phrases, vocabulary range and sentence structure. Actual performance showed improvement in grammatical accuracy and fluency, but not in the other areas. Student [007] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) Vocabulary range; passive (Week 2) Tense; subordinate clauses; vocabulary; word order (Week 3) Vocabulary; complex sentences; grammar (tense formation) (Week 4) Conciseness (Week 5) No data available for noticing (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [007]s greatest noticing was in the area of vocabulary and sentence formation. Actual performance indicated no change throughout the investigation period in all areas of analysis. Interestingly, this student had presented a challenge to the Department long before this current study was conducted, and had appeared to have fossilised, having been with the department for the entire year to date, and showing no real improvement over this period. The student was not available for the noticing session in Week 5, but it was felt that enough information was available to build a picture of what was being noticed and used from the other weeks work. Student [008] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) Vocabulary range; repetition of nouns (Week 2) Conciseness; paragraphing; grammar and vocabulary (Week 3) Grammar; time phrases; vocabulary; conciseness (Week 4) Introduction; academic style and expression (Week 5) Conciseness; complexity of sentences; repetition (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [008]s greatest noticing was in the area of vocabulary, grammar, style and conciseness. Actual performance showed the greatest improvement in vocabulary range and accuracy, and grammatical accuracy and fluency. No progress was recorded overall in the area of cohesion.

Student [009] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) vocabulary; academic style (Week 2) organisation; style; grammar (articles); vocabulary (Week 3) vocabulary; collocation; noun phrases (Week 4) collocation; grammar (prepositions); passive (Week 5) vocabulary; collocation (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [009]s greatest noticing was in the area of vocabulary and style. Actual performance showed progress was made in task achievement, whereas no particular progress was evident in other areas. Student [0010] noticed the following aspects week by week (quotation denotes students actual words): (Week 1) passive; academic style (Week 2) phrases; collocation; vocabulary (Week 3) vocabulary; collocation (Week 4) vocabulary; phrases; academic expression (Week 5) noun phrases; linkers; vocabulary (Week 6) No noticing requested Student [0010]s greatest noticing was in the area of vocabulary, and style. Actual performance showed the biggest improvement in cohesion, followed by vocabulary range and accuracy and then grammatical accuracy and fluency.