Implications for learner training

What specific forms should pedagogical applications take to realize these potential benefits while minimizing their drawbacks? First of all, the findings of previous studies (e.g., Kennedy & Miceli, 2001, 2010; H. Yoon, 2005, 2008) and of this present study confirm that it is a lengthy process for L2 writers to master using reference resources as problem solving tools independently. Gradual and guided training and meaningful engagement with reference tools are required over an extended period of time. Independent use of concordancing and other reference resources can be better practiced if preceded by a general understanding of basic concepts around concordancing and reference-resource consultation in general, and sufficient hands-on practice with ongoing guidance from teachers or tutors. In this respect, concordancing and its combined use with other resources could usefully first be introduced into academic writing courses for students at intermediate levels of English proficiency. As noted earlier, compared to advanced L2 writers like the participants in this study who were oriented in tasks for their graduate studies to writing-to-learn content, (Manchón, 2011) or writing to mean (Byrnes, 2013), intermediate-level L2 learners, while having levels of (meta-)linguistic knowledge needed for concordancing, are more likely to engage in writing to learn the target language. For this reason, using reference resources for lexical and grammatical problem solving should help improve such students’ writing directly while causing less cognitive disruption than was seen with the present participants. One important insight from this study is that learners should be guided to build a meaningful cognitive partnership with reference tools on their own by learning over time to come to terms with and eventually turn to their advantage the cognitive exertion

involved in using reference tools as they move across different writing contexts (e.g., writing-to-

learn content, or writing to mean).

At the same time, as the present case studies clearly demonstrated, even within similar educational contexts, individual L2 writers’ processes and outcomes of reference resource consultation can vary widely. Thus, special care and guidance should be given to individual needs of students through one-on-one conferences that may resemble the stimulated recall and feedback sessions conducted in this study. Then, over time when students are increasingly familiarized with reference tools, and the different types of problems that they can tackle with the tools, students can be progressively guided to use these tools outside of the classroom for their own content-course writing assignments.

For those L2 writers who do not take language or writing courses at universities, support programs such as writing centres can offer classes and workshops that introduce concordancing tools and other useful reference resources for L2 writers. Further, writing centre tutors may solve together with students the language problems commonly found in their papers using concordancing and other useful resources in their one-on-one sessions, through which the students learn the functions of different resources and strategies for using them effectively.

Then, what should be the content of this learner training? Advances in computer technology and reference resource research have and will come with new types of reference resources and changes in the scope and functions of existing types of resources, so it would be important to start learner training with general principles of effective reference resource

consultation for problem solving that can apply to different types of resources universally. These general principles can in turn include specific attitudes or perspectives that learners need to cultivate to have meaningful engagement and a productive cognitive partnership with reference resources on the one hand and general strategies for effective searches and

evaluation/application of search results on the other.

To discuss facilitative attitudes for successful reference resource consultation for L2 writing first, I present three perspectives distilled from the findings of the present and previous studies (e.g., Kennedy & Miceli’s 2010 “apprenticeship” approach). The first perspective is the recognition that it can be a long process to become familiarized with and reach a certain level of mastery of a reference tool. Only through actual use, practice, and some trial and error can users discover functions that meet their specific needs while writing in their target language and so

develop their own strategies for using each function. Some participants in the present study were observed to give up using certain resources due to their initial steep learning curves before developing a feel for their unique functions and how they could support their writing. Therefore, L2 writers should invest a certain amount of time and effort in figuring the resource out on their own and “making it [their] own” (Kennedy & Miceli, 2010, p. 38). One should be reminded that overall effective use of online/offline dictionaries and search engines such as Google are the results of years of experience and repeated use.

Second, L2 writers should be aware of the potential of reference resource consultation for their own language acquisition. When using a reference tool while engaging in a writing task, the writer’s main intention may be to use it as a problem-solving tool to complete the task at hand as efficiently as possible with no particular intention of language learning. However, reference resources, when strategically used, can help writers to do rigorous meaning

negotiations that are based on attested language data and provide immediate external feedback, therefore allowing writers to access the linguistic items that lie beyond their usual linguistic repertoires. In other words, L2 writers should realize that reference resource consultation done for problem solving lead to their language development in the sense of learning more about the language and using the language better. In this sense, the extra cognitive load involved in the use of reference resource consultation should be accepted as part of the learning process, as long as it is not too heavy to handle under the given constraints. Even the cognitively disruptive nature of reference resource consultation during drafting can be turned to advantage. As some of the present participants reported, greater attention to and uptake of linguistic problems at the drafting stage may save the writer much work at the revising or proofreading stage later. In this regard, L2 learners may take every writing task as a language learning opportunity in which they can practice form-function-meaning mappings to make use of different functions of given reference resources.

The final perspective is that although reference resources can serve as a more competent interlocutor with whom the learner engages in meaning negotiations, they should not be

considered tutors but rather informants at best (Gavioli, 2009). Unlike human teachers or tutors, reference resources are not intelligent by themselves but add to a user’s cognitive power only through her active participation in intellectual partnership with them. In other words, L2 writers should abandon the expectation that reference resources are tools that work for them by helping

them to complete the same tasks with less time and effort. Instead, reference resources are tools that one should work with in a cognitive division of labor. This approach means that writers still take full responsibility for finding solutions to their writing problems and making their own decisions, and consequently they still have to deal with uncertainty about the solutions they find through consultations. However, at the same time, writers need to realize that they are learning in the process and that the solutions arrived at through interactions with reference resources are more likely to be correct than ones that an unaided mind alone would produce. In this regard, L2 writers should also be aware that the use of reference tools works toward increasing their

autonomy for writing independently.

Along with these facilitative perspectives, universally applicable strategies for reference tool use should be part of the general principles of reference resource consultation. I also developed a set of these general strategies that can be employed at each step of the problem- solving cycle (see Appendix H for detailed discussion of these strategies). Learners can be introduced to these general principles at the beginning of their training and reminded of them while taught about and practicing with individual reference resources.

Learner training can also include guidance on the benefits of using multiple (types) of reference resources. As evidenced in the findings on the query purposes and the resources consulted, concordancing cannot replace but only complements other types of reference

resources, which have each their own unique functions useful for L2 writers’ problem solving. For this reason, while the primary emphasis should be on concordancing as it is a new and unfamiliar type of resource for most students, learner training may cover different types of reference resources, especially fast-evolving hybrid resources like online bilingual dictionaries (e.g., Naver). At the same time, while these resources are separately introduced and instructed, how to strategically use different resources in combination within a problem space and how to integrate information extracted from these different resources should constitute an important part of training. However, the mutual complementarity of different resources does not mean that more is always better (Frankenberg-Garcia, 2005). Writing teachers or consultants should

choose a set of non-overlapping, complimentary resources that are appropriate for their students’ proficiency levels, interests, and task types.