Determination of Places to Provide Feedback for Scientific Writing:
Focusing on the Analysis of the “Compromise” and “Give-up” Strategies	
Kimie Yamamura
Ph.D. Student, Department of Language and Information Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo	

Introduction	

Method	

1.1 Purpose	

2.1 Participants

The present study explores teaching methods forscientific writing in Japan, where English is used as aforeign language. It attempts to determine places toprovide feedback, in particularly for graduate students,
who are native speakers of Japanese majoring inscience at a research-based university, so that they canwrite scientific descriptions as precisely as they can do inJapanese. 	

The participants were eleven graduate students
who were native speakers of Japanese majoringin science at a research-based university.	
Table 1: Participants
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
891.2 Research Question	
The primary research question of this study is how
instructors, including those who are not familiar with
scientific topics, can determine places to provide
feedback, not in terms of correcting grammatical errors,
but in terms of improving precision in scientificdescriptions.	

2.4.2 Coding Procedures to Identify Problems	• The protocol data that showed difficulties a participant
experienced in the Solution Process were extracted andcategorized by codes in the Table 3 shown below.
Table 3. A list of codes of problems	
Identifying a problem

ption

Exploring a solution

Introspection

2.2 Data Collection Methods	

Applying strategies

Writing

Sense of discrepancy

Sense of readers

Ideas generated from description
Consideration
Conflict
Affirmation
Retrieval from memory
Avoidance for compliance with the rules

Planning
StyleGrammar
Command of vocabulary and expressions
SpellingRuleCompromise
Not writing

Problems

Information accuracy

Give-upExternal factor

Time pressure

Objective perspectives

Writing style
Explaining the intention

Problems

Other

The codes enclosed by ayellow line were grouped
ith the rules
together as Solution
Process.

Name
Osamu
Reiji
Nana
Shigeru
Minami
ShinichiMomokoLeo
SerinaGender
M
M
F
M
FM
F
M
FAge
22
22
23
24
25
22
23
25
24

10

Tatsuya

M

23

11

May

F

23

Major
Physics
Physics
Chemistry
Geology
Biology
Physics
Biology
Biology
Biology
Physics
Biology
Biology

5Kimie:Reiji:
Kimie:
Reiji:
Kimie:
Reiji:

10 Kimie:
Reiji:

1st-year MA① Writing task	
② Interview using stimulated recall	③ Semi-structured interview	
④ Questionnaire	

2.3 Data Collection Procedures	

Kimie:
Tatsuya:

5Kimie:Tatsuya:
Kimie:

Results	

Sense of discrepancy

Identifying a problem
Exploring a solution

Introspection

Writing

Applying strategies

Ideas generated from description
Consideration
Conflict
Affirmation
Retrieval from memory
Avoidance for compliance with the rules
Compromise

Not writing

Give-upExternal factor

Time pressure

Objective perspectives

Writing style
Explaining the intention

Other

Exploring a solution
Consideration
32.4%
ConflictIdentifying a problem
Sense of discrepancy
8.8%
Ideas generated from
2.1%
description

6.2%

Table 4. The problems the participants faced during thewriting sessions

The numbers of utterances of each codes are the average of those of
eleven participants. The standard deviations show the differences arelarge (or small) among the participants. The percentages were obtainedby dividing the number of utterance of a code to the total number ofutterance.	

Sense of readers
Planning
Style
GrammarCommand of vocabulary and expressions
Spelling
Rule
Information accuracy

Codes of Problems

Number ofutterances

Sense of readers
Planning
StyleGrammar

2.5
7.7
0.9
2.1
14.5
1.4
0.9
0.9

Command of vocabulary and expressions

SpellingRule
Information accuracy(SD)((((((((2.5
4.6
1.1
1.7
7.7
1.0
2.2
1.9

Percentage))))))))

8.2%
25.0%
2.9%
6.8%
46.8%
4.4%
2.9%
2.9%

Semi-structured interview	And, you wrote “do you know hydrogen atom” here…
I didn’t know how long I paused here. But I thought that
I had to explain about “hydrogen atom”, and I was thinking about
how to express it in English.
Did you have an idea in Japanese?
Well...the final sentence was different from the initial idea.
Really.
Yes. Initially, I came up with an image of an atom model that has a proton in thecenter and an electron orbiting around the proton. And, I was thinking about
how to express it in English…
I see.
But I gave up describing an accurate model...I gave it up. Instead, I wrote thathydrogen contains two particles, an electron and a proton.

Here, “Kono kenkyu ha atarashii jinko…(This research can be applied fornew artificial…)”. (The researcher read aloud Tatsuya’s handwriting.)	
I am writing “This research can be applied for new artificial intelligence.”
This is a conclusion part.	
I see. I did not expect the story to develop in this way. I was surprised thatphysics has connection with a brain. I thought your research may relate toelementary particles or something like that.	
Actually, I had wanted to explain it, but I found it beyond my ability.	
I know it is really tough. Umm…	

Interview using stimulated recall	

Table 2. A list of codes to identify solution process	

2nd-year MA

1 Kimie:
Reiji:
5

Do you have any places where you feel like, “I wanted to write in adifferent way” or “I did not want to write in this way”?
Uh… I have several places, but the part I used “contain” is a place
where I feel like I wanted to write in a different way. I used “contain” here,
but in Japanese I can write the sentence as like, “the model has aproton in the center and an electron orbiting around it”, so I wish
I could do it in English.

Reiji’s Compromise	Protocol Data (Transcribed Interview Data)	
Tatsuya’s
Tatsuya’s Give-up	
Give-up	

1• The interviews ② & ③ were recorded and transcribed foranalysis. The protocol data (interview data) were divided into
Introspection or Other. Then the protocol data that showed
participant’s processes to solve them were categorized by codes
enclosed by a yellow line, and these codes were grouped
together as Solution Process.

1) The participants wrote an English letter inscientific context to the researcher by hand.
2) Their handwriting andmovements of thebody from the waist up were recorded.
3) Interview ② was conducted while the video
was shown to the participants as a stimulus.
4) Interview ③ was conducted.
5) Questionnaire was conducted after 3 months.	
Time pressure

Interview using stimulated recall	
1Grade1st-year MA
1st-year MA
1st-year MA
2nd-year MA
2nd-year PhD
1st-year MA
2nd-year MA
1st-year PhD
2nd-year MA

2.4.1 Coding Procedures to Identify Solution Process	

1

Kimie:

5

Tatsuya:
Kimie:
Tatsuya:

Kimie:
Tatsuya:
Kimie:
10 Tatsuya:

The interviews wereoriginally conducted in Japanese.	
The protocol data were translated bythe researcher.	

I have asked you similar questions before, but do you have any places whereyou feel like, “I wanted to write in a different way” or “I did not want to write in this way”?	
Uh… I do not know…	
Do you have any places where you wish to write in a different way?	
Well… in terms of grammar, I wish I could write almost all sentences more accurately,
but uh…the content…uh…	
I think you have said that you made a major compromise around here.	
Uh…Yes… Uh…	You have said that you learnt it (the techniques) by yourself or something like that.	
Yes, it is true. I have thought that. Uh…but I think I should have explained more about
my research.	

Semi-structured interview	Not writing
Give-up

Writing
Affirmation
Retrieval from memory
Avoidance for compliancewith the rule
Compromise

3.2%

21.3%
2.1%
1.3%
6.0%

Applying strategies
Solving a problem

Fig. 1 A diagram of Solution Process

The diagram was created by schematizing the relationships of the codes of the Solution Process. It shows
the circular process the participants experienced when solving a problem. The percentages were obtained by
dividing the number of utterances of a code to the total number of utterances in the Introspection.	

Discussion & Educational Implication	• The participants had the Problems in the Command of vocabulary andexpressions and in the Planning.
• The participants experienced the Solution Process and applied the strategies
shown in the Figure 1 to overcome the Problems.
• The protocol data and the pieces of writing show the participants experienced
the Problems even at places where no grammatical errors were found in thefinal products.
• The protocol data of the semi-structured interviews show the participants vividlyremembered the places where the Compromise and Give-up strategies wereapplied. This suggests that learning effects may be high if feedback isprovided at these places.
• Scientific writing requires skills to write descriptions precisely rather than to getaround a problem. It may be necessary for science students to experience theCompromise and Give-up strategies in writing sessions to realize theirproblems before they start their laboratory lives.
• Using an introspective method may help instructors who do not have abackground in scientific fields determine places to provide feedback, andimprove scientific descriptions.