Theoretical and practical issues on corrective feedback in l2 writing

Texto completo

(1)Running Head: THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING Theoretical and Practical Issues on Corrective Feedback in L2 writing. Jaiver Antonio Santiago Sabogal. Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas Facultad de Ciencias y Educación Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en Inglés Bogotá 2017. 1.

(2) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING Theoretical and Practical Issues on Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing. Jaiver Antonio Santiago Sabogal. Thesis Director: Rigoberto Castillo. A Project submitted as a requirement to obtain the BACHELOR DEGREE IN BASIC EDUCATION WITH EMPHASIS IN ENGLISH. Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas Facultad de Ciencias Y Educación Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en Inglés Bogotá 2017. 2.

(3) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. Note of Acceptance. ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________. Thesis Director: ______________________. Thesis Juror: ______________________. 3.

(4) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. Acuerdo 019 de 1998 del Consejo Superior Universitario. Artículo177: “La Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas no será responsable por las ideas expuestas en esta tesis”.. Acuerdo 004 de 2012 del Consejo Superior Universitario. Artículo 4: “La Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas tiene por contado que cualquier producción intelectual presentada por sus docentes, funcionarios, estudiantes o vinculados ante la Universidad son producciones respetuosas del ordenamiento legal, las cuales en ningún caso se presume que no han trasgredido otros derechos de propiedad intelectual de otras personas e instituciones, mientras no se demuestre de manera probatoria lo contrario”.. 4.

(5) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 5. Acknowledgements. First of all, I want to thank the destiny, that entity which framed the way for me, to develop this project, alive and with good health. Secondly, I want to express my gratitude to my mother, father, brother and sister, for giving to me the emotional and economical support that I needed to complete this thesis, and also, for the patience they had when I fell in emotional crisis. Additionally, I want to say thank you to the teachers and professors of the Bachelor of English Language Teaching, who supported me along this research process and, for creating on me, the desire of researching about this topic: The M.A Manuel Medina for accepting this project since the moment when it was just an interest, three years ago; the Ph.D Harold Castañeda for his advisory in this work, in relation to the problem, the literature review and the research design; and the Ph.D Rigoberto Castillo, my thesis director, for his guidance in the completion and conclusion of this project. Finally, but not the least, I want to express my honest gratitude to my friends Lorena Plazas, Daniela Pinzón, Carolina Carrero, Danna Carranza, Paula Gomez and Andrés Vásquez because, although they did not participate in this process, they were interested and supported me morally for finishing this work. I only wish that this humble contribution to knowledge is taken into consideration as support for the development of other research projects, by students from this academic program..

(6) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 6. Table of Contents. Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 9 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10 Chapter I ....................................................................................................................... 12 Statement of the problem ............................................................................................. 12 Chapter II ...................................................................................................................... 16 Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 16 Review of Research on Written Corrective Feedback ....................................... 16 Indirect Feedback and L2 Writing ...................................................................... 20 Direct Feedback and Indirect Feedback Compared. ......................................... 21 Discussion. .............................................................................................................. 22 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................ 23 Chapter III .................................................................................................................... 25 Research Design ............................................................................................................ 25 Research Paradigm ............................................................................................... 25 Type of Study ......................................................................................................... 25 Data Collection Techniques .................................................................................. 28 Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................ 28 Chapter IV .................................................................................................................... 31 Pedagogical Intervention ............................................................................................. 31 Theory of Learning ............................................................................................... 31.

(7) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 7. Theory of Language .............................................................................................. 32 Pedagogical Method .............................................................................................. 32 Presentation of Activities ...................................................................................... 33 Lesson Plan ............................................................................................................ 33 Learners’ Role ....................................................................................................... 35 Teacher’s role ........................................................................................................ 36 Assessment ............................................................................................................. 36 Chapter V ...................................................................................................................... 39 Data Analysis and Findings ......................................................................................... 39 Linguistic Features ................................................................................................ 41 Errors and Corrections in Grammar: Wrong Word. ........................................ 43 Errors and Corrections in Grammar: Wrong Form ......................................... 46 Errors and Corrections in Spelling: Capitalization ........................................... 51 Errors and Corrections in Spelling: Singulars and Plurals .............................. 54 Errors and Corrections in Spelling: Addition and Omission of Letters .......... 56 Errors and Corrections in Spelling: Wrong Spelling ........................................ 58 Students’ Perceptions ............................................................................................ 63 General Results ...................................................................................................... 70 Chapter VI .................................................................................................................... 73 Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Further Research ................................ 73 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 73 Implications............................................................................................................ 76.

(8) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 8. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 76 Further Research................................................................................................... 77 Personal Reflections Towards Research ............................................................. 77 References...................................................................................................................... 79 Annexes .......................................................................................................................... 85 Annex 1: Consent Form ........................................................................................ 85 Annex 2: Lesson Plan Samples ............................................................................. 86 Annex 3: Worksheets. ........................................................................................... 89.

(9) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 9. Abstract. This monograph reviews the literature and reports the efficacy of Corrective Feedback in second language writing of a group of tenth graders in Bogotá. This research project derived from the apparent misunderstanding of the corrections given by the headroom teacher who provided comments and feedback in ways students could not figure out. This qualitative action research project was carried out in seven weeks, in which the learners developed compositions which involved genres such as narrative text, argumentative text, reflective text and others. Each task followed the procedure of planning, production, correction and editing. The researcher provided feedback on grammar, spelling, rhetorical organization, and ability to communicate ideas, guided by rubrics and comments about the reason of the error and its way to correct it. At the end of this project, it was found that most of the students displayed more accurate specific elements of grammar and spelling, nevertheless, this improvement was characterized by a conception of the correction of the error as a process rather than a replacing step. It means, the correction was based on how to do it, instead of changing the radical form.. Keywords: Correction and retention, feedback, foreign language, spelling and grammar..

(10) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 10. Introduction. Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) has been a topic of discussion for several years. Truscott (2007) states that this method “has a small harmful effect on students’ ability to write accurately” (p. 270). Other researchers have explored feedback in second language (L2) writing. Correa, Martinez, De la Barra, Rojas and Cisternas (2013) stated argue that “Language teachers provide these comments [feedback] in different ways. Some of them mark the text with ticks or crosses ... If students are not involved in understanding the feedback provided, they will not improve their language competence” (p. 150). For Beuningen (2011) Ferris (2003); Ferris and Roberts (2001) and others have inquired this field of research, demonstrating that feedback is effective to enhance L2 writing, depending on factors that are part of their investigations. This research project expected to make a contribution to this discussion by identifying, when and how feedback proves to be effective in L2 writing. This study aimed to enhance the L2 grammar and spelling proficiency of a group of tenth grade students from a school located in Bogotá. The interest of this project emerged from the possible misunderstanding by the students, of the feedback provided by the head – room teacher when assessing compositions; a difficulty that could be due to a lack of communication between teacher and student than to a deficiency of qualitative assessment by the teacher. The relevance of this study relied on three important arguments. Firstly, most of the research studies on feedback in L2 writing have been developed in countries where languages such as Japanese, Mandarin, Portuguese and Arabic languages are spoken. Nevertheless, few researchers have looked into Spanish. Secondly, many studies involve children or adults in the procedures, and few focus on adolescent school leavers. And thirdly, according to my experience, most of the English.

(11) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 11. language teachers use direct feedback, in the cases where they assess writing assignments (See the concepts in Chapter II). Based on that and my awareness of several types of feedback (Conference, oral, direct, indirect, mixed and others), I decided to implement indirect feedback in this study. This monograph is divided into six chapters. The first addresses the research problem, questions and objectives. The second discusses the theory and studies that support this study. The third presents the research design, data collection techniques and instruments, and a brief description of the participants. The fourth chapter explains the pedagogical intervention, the lesson design and the activities. The fifth presents the analysis of the data collected and the results of this process. Finally, the sixth section brings the conclusions, limitations and implications of the study, as well as questions for further research..

(12) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 12. Chapter I. Statement of the problem. Along my practicum with secondary school, I had the opportunity to work with a group of 35 tenth grade students from a school located in Bogotá. Its learners study English three hours per week and they use materials to develop activities focused on the communicative skills in English. However, these students seem to have learning difficulties in terms of writing performance, possibly, due to a misunderstanding of the feedback that the teacher provides correcting writing assignments. This problem arose from a situation in which the students committed writing errors in basic workshops such as self – biographies, sentences applying basic grammar elements (Verb “To be”, Present Simple, Present continuous, and others), spelling and punctuation errors, as demonstrated in Excerpt 1.. Excerpt 1: Errors detected in a short writing assignment. Source: Student’s artifact.. To confirm this problematic situation, two different surveys were designed. One of the surveys was to know students’ writing skills and perceptions about writing corrections in the school and its application in the re – edition or creation of new composition. Another survey was designed and applied for the home – room teacher; this survey was supposed to find methodologies of written feedback and its application.

(13) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 13. when assessing pupils’ assignments. In addition to the surveys, I wrote a diary journal, in which I gathered information about students’ opinions and perspectives about their writing proficiency level, skills and development inside the English class. Excerpt 2 displays a questionnaire answered by the headroom teacher which evidences that the teacher she applies a kind of error correction when her students develop compositions in English.. Excerpt 2: Questionnaire answered by the headroom teacher.. In Excerpt 2, there is a correction method applied when assessing students' compositions. However, the procedure is not apparently clear for students to understand the way to correct their errors. Excerpt 3 illustrates a practitioner's journal, in which I remarked a statement made by one of the students about his English proficiency.. Excerpt 3: Practitioner’s journal written on March 2nd.. In Excerpt 3, the student claimed that “yo [the student] soy remalo con la escritura y pues las correcciones que nos hace la profe no las entiendo bien”. Based on this statement, I could infer that the learner presents difficulties in L2 writing and the.

(14) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 14. teacher does not provide the appropriate feedback for him. Excerpt 4 illustrates a similar evidence. The participants fulfilled an open survey. The questionnaire addressed issues related to their proficiency, the development of the lessons and the provision of feedback by the teacher.. Excerpt 4: Questionnaire answered by an eleventh grade student.. In this questionnaire, most of the students agreed that they did not understand the feedback and do not modify their errors, apparently, due to the lack of comprehensible feedback. For Correa et al (2013): “Language teachers provide these comments [feedback] in different ways. Some of them mark the text with ticks or crosses ... If students are not involved in understanding the feedback provided, they will not improve their language competence”. p 150 The justification of this proposal deals with determining the contributions that indirect feedback provides to the development of Grammar and Spelling in L2 written compositions. Furthermore, this study intends to identify the elements of language that reveal more enhancement when this type of feedback is implemented in the classroom. From empirical observations, analysis of voices and students’ artifacts, it could be evidenced that most of the students have difficulties in several aspects of writing (e.g. Grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and others), possibly, due to a misunderstanding of.

(15) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 15. the feedback that the teacher provides through error correction. It is important to clarify that this problem is not teacher – focused but this could be raised from a lack of communication between she and the students. Based on the problem that I stated previously, this study aimed to answer the following questions:. How may Indirect Feedback contribute to the development of L2 writing accuracy in a tenth grader? Which features of L2 grammar and spelling were enhanced by indirect feedback in a tenth grader?. Based on the information above, this project has the following objectives: . To define the benefits of Corrective Feedback on the development of L2 writing accuracy.. . To analyze what happens when implementing Indirect Corrective Feedback to improve L2 writing proficiency in tenth grade students.. . To identify the elements of L2 grammar and spelling which present positive changes through the application of Indirect Feedback..

(16) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 16. Chapter II. Literature Review This chapter, devoted to the theoretical background of this study, contains two sections. In the first section, I will address the findings by researchers who have inquired about Written Corrective Feedback, including a discussion between their conclusions. And, in the second section, I will explain the theory and the main concepts that lead this project.. Review of Research on Written Corrective Feedback In the review of studies on Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), I identified different points of view towards the influence of indirect feedback in L2 writing accuracy development, in a comparison with direct feedback. However, there are few studies that analyze the indirect way in isolation. Image 1 displays a graphic overview of the previous studies on WCF that support my project..

(17) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 17. Image 1: A brief description of research studies on feedback in writing. Source: Own.. Additionally, I paid special attention to the reports and thesis that appear in Chart 1; these were drawn from academic databases to establish what is known and not known on the topic.. Author, year. 1. 2. Ferris Roberts (2001). Chandler (2003). Problem or issue. &. There is no conclusion about the explicitness of WCF to improve students’ accuracy when self – editing their assignments.. Current evidence on the effectiveness of WCF is insufficient.. Population and length of study 44 students from a composition class in an institution in California.. Research method. Experimental Research. In self – editing, Indirect WCF is more effective to improve accuracy in categories such as word choice or structure.. Experimental Research. Students who were asked to correct their errors could improve their writing accuracy.. Six months. 31 music undergraduate students from an institution. Six months.. Results.

(18) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Author, year. Problem or issue. Bitchener, J.; Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). There is a need of research about WCF in new pieces and with a wide range of linguistic features.. Population and length of study 53 migrant adult students.. 62 secondary There are no clear students from conclusions about the Dutch school effectiveness of feedback whose L1 is in the long – term. not German. 144 migrant There is a need of further ESL students Bitchener & evidence about the in Auckland, Knoch effectiveness of WCF in New Zealand. (2008) accuracy. Two months.. Sheen, Y.; Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). It is necessary to define a variety of linguistic features to be treated through WCF.. 46 Japanese students. Results. Not specified. The type of feedback selected in this research did not have any important effect on writing accuracy when involving a wide range of linguistic features.. Not specified. Direct WCF is the most effective for a specific context for improving writing accuracy in the short – term and the long – term.. Not specified. The students could improve their accuracy when using specific linguistic elements in writing.. 12 months.. Beuningen, C.; de Jong, N. & Kuiken, F. (2008). Ellis, R.; Sheen, Y.; The effectiveness of WCF Murakami, on writing in EFL, focused M. & on articles. Takashima, H. (2008). Research method. 18. 15 weeks.. Exposure to WCF benefit the learners Quasi – in the improvement of writing experimental accuracy, benefit which could be Research. durable in the long term.. Five native teachers and 80 intermediate students from an institution in the US.. Quasi - Correcting students’ work helps experimental learners to improve writing accuracy Research instead of providing it.. Eight weeks.. 8. Beuningen (2011). 9. Although there is research on the effectiveness of Farrokhi & WCF, there is a need of Sattarpour research on which (2012) feedback method is more appropriated to improve writing accuracy.. 10. Maleki Eslami (2013). (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). &. There is a need of more research about the effects of direct and indirect WCF.. 66 students from a Dutch secondary school whose their L1 is not German. 60 high – proficient students from a university in Iran. Five weeks. 90 intermediate English students from an institute in Iran. Three times per week, for 12 weeks.. Not specified. Direct and Indirect WCF more effective than self – correction.. Focused and unfocused WCF were Quasi – effective to improve students’ experimental accuracy, however, direct WCF had Research. more significant effects than the indirect one.. Experimental Research.. There was an improvement in students’ writing accuracy when applying indirect WCF. Its benefits were more evident with this method than the ones with other methods such as control method and red – pen correction..

(19) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. Author, year. 11. Problem or issue. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of WCF to improve writing accuracy.. Eslami (2014). Population and length of study 60 low – intermediate students from an institute in Iran.. 19. Research method. Results. Not specified.. The application of WCF helped learners to develop their writing accuracy skill.. 12 weeks.. 12. Fazilatfar, 30 advanced A.; Fallah, L2 learners N.; Evidence of the benefits of Hamavandi, Indirect WCF. M. & Three months. Rostamian, M. (2014). 13. Villalba, A. & Martinez, F. (2014). 14. Frear & Chiu (2015). Effectiveness of WCF on B2 adult learners’ accuracy.. Comparative effectiveness between direct and indirect WCF.. 21 B2 adult learners.. Quasi – The students presented an experimental improvement of syntax and lexical Research. complexity of writing compositions.. Mixed Research.. Not specified. 66 undergraduate Chinese students from an institute in Iran.. Direct WCF is more effective in improving L2 accuracy when applying adverbs of manner.. Quasi – There were no differences between the experimental effectiveness of direct and indirect Research. WCF on writing accuracy.. Not specified.. 15. Cánovas, J.; Roca, J. & Coyle, Y. (2015). There is much research on WCF with adolescents and adults, but there is few research on WCF with children.. 20 fifth grade students from a private school in Spain.. Not specified.. The use of models and repetition of writing tasks are useful for an improvement on writing accuracy.. Two weeks.. 16. Jamalinesari, A.; Rhimi, F. & Azizifar, A. (2015). Influence of direct and indirect WCF in local Iranian students.. 20 intermediate female students from a private English institution.. Not specified.. Students improved more their writing accuracy in new tasks using indirect WCF than when using direct WCF.. 10 sessions. Chart 1: An overview of research reports on Written Corrective Feedback. Source: Own.. Along the study of the research articles presented previously, there were research studies which state positions in favor and against the application of Indirect Feedback to develop writing accuracy, however, there were also studies which demonstrated a preference of Direct Feedback over Indirect Feedback. These are discussed below..

(20) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 20. Indirect Feedback and L2 Writing Ferris (2003) defined Indirect Written Corrective Feedback as the provision of the correction of an error committed by the learner without giving him / her the correct linguistic form. In agreement with Ferris, Eslami (2014) explains that “Indirect feedback occurs when the teacher indicates in some way that an error exists but does not provide the correction, thus leaving it to the student to find it” (p. 446). Additionally, Ferris and Roberts (2001), Fazilatfar et al (2014), Jamalinesari et al (2015), Maleki & Eslami (2013), Sheen (2009), Bitchener et al (2005) and Frear & Chiu (2015) defined Indirect Written Corrective Feedback as the provision of corrections in written pieces, focused on a wide range of linguistic features.. Several Research studies have advocated on the positive effectiveness of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in the development and improvement of writing accuracy. Ferris and Roberts (2001) have revealed that “indirect feedback can even help students to self - edit idiosyncratic errors such as word choice and sentence structure.” (p. 172). In the same line of argument, Maleki’s and Eslami’s research results (2013) evidenced that “the indirect feedback group acted significantly better than the other two groups (the red pen feedback group and the control group) on the delayed post-test suggesting the lasting effectiveness of the indirect WCF over direct red pen feedback” (p. 1255). Additionally, Jamalinesari et al (2014) stated that learners perform better in L2 writing when Indirect WCF is applied. Moreover, In Fazilatfar et al (2014), research results revealed that “unfocused feedback can help students receive valuable feedback on their new inaccuracies and consequently provides a chance to eradicate errors form their future new pieces of writing” (p. 487). Finally, Eslami (2014) demonstrated that Indirect WCF helps to the development of writing accuracy in the long – term. Despite these evidences, other studies have denied any benefit by Indirect Feedback on L2 Writing.

(21) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 21. accuracy development. Even, some studies have stated a preference for Direct Feedback.. Some researchers (Bitchener et al, 2005; Sheen et al, 2009; Frear & Chiu, 2015) have stated conclusions regarding the negative or null effectiveness of this method to improve L2 writing accuracy. Firstly, Bitchener et al (2005) state that the type of feedback applied did not have any effect in L2 writing development when all linguistic features were taken into consideration. Secondly, Sheen et al (2009) argue that “unfocused CF runs the risk of (1) providing CF in a confusing, inconsistent and unsystematic way and (2) overburdening learners.” (p. 567). And thirdly, Frear & Chiu (2015) claim that “indirect WCF was probably insufficient for the learners to have noticed the target structure” (p. 32). Direct Feedback and Indirect Feedback Compared. First of all, Beuningen (2011) has defined Direct Written Corrective Feedback as “an indication of the error and the corresponding correct L2 form” (p. 61). In the same line of argument, Chandler (2003), Sheen et al (2009), Ellis et al (2008), Farrokhi & Sattarpour (2012), Beuningen et al (2008), Villalba & Matinez (2014) and Cánovas et al (2015) defined Direct Written Corrective Feedback as the provision of the correct linguistic form when an error is committed. Moreover, some researchers have stated a preference of Direct Feedback for L2 Writing development, over Indirect Feedback. First of all, Beuningen (2011) has demonstrated that “only direct CF [Corrective Feedback] helped pupils to reduce the number of grammatical errors in a new text which was written one week after the feedback had been provided” (p. 84). As a complement to this claim, Beuningen’s, De Jong’s and Kuiken’s research study (2008) demonstrates that “direct error correction.

(22) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 22. appears to be the most effective treatment for this study’s population, resulting in both short – term and long – term accuracy improvement” (p. 292). Moreover, Villalba & Martinez’ research study (2014) demonstrated that Direct Written Corrective Feedback is “the most beneficial in promoting gains in learners’ written grammatical accuracy in reference to this grammar device” (p. 62). In the same line of argument, Cánovas et al (2015) investigated the use of models as Direct Corrective Feedback. The authors have found that “the use of model texts can be useful for focusing children's attention primarily on lexis and chunks of language, repetition of the writing task itself might also be accountable for improved performance in revised written output” (p. 73). Furthermore, Sheen et al (2009, p. 565) show that “focused written error correction directed at indefinite (first mention) and definite (second mention) article errors resulted in greater accuracy than unfocused correction directed at a range of grammatical errors”. In Ellis et al (2008), results suggest that Focused Corrective Feedback “helped the learners to use articles with greater consistency in subsequent writing and, in most cases, to manifest gains in accuracy which were durable” (p. 364). It has also been reported that Direct Corrective Feedback “resulted in the largest increase in accuracy both for revisions and for subsequent writing” (Chandler, 2003, p. 293). Finally, Farrokhi & Sattarpour (2012) affirmed that providing written corrective feedback [CF] is an effective way for responding to high-proficient learners’ written performance in general … [and] focused written CF has more positive effect on these learners’ acquisition of the targeted structures than the unfocused written CF” (p. 54). Discussion. The literature suggests that the application of feedback in L2 writing could be effective, according to the type of feedback concerned by the authors. The advocates of Indirect Feedback suggest that this method could be effective, as in the short – term.

(23) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 23. (Ferris & Roberts, 2001) as in the long – term (Eslami, 2014). Additionally, this type of feedback helps the learners to develop L2 writing accuracy when there are linguistic categories selected (Jamalinesari et al, 2015) because, if the opposite, the students could get confused about which errors to correct, making this method insufficient to develop or improve writing accuracy (Sheen, 2009; Bitchener et al, 2005, Frear & Chiu, 2015).. On the other hand, advocates of Direct Feedback agree that this method benefit students to shape L2 writing accuracy (Beuningen, 2011; Beuningen et al, 2008; Chandler, 2003). Nevertheless, this method could be effective if it is allowed for to discriminate the errors by types and focus the feedback on one or two types of error (Farrokhi & Sattarpour, 2012).. Theoretical Framework This section explains the theory that plays an important role and the constructs that identify this project. The constructs that define my study are L2 Writing accuracy and Corrective Feedback. L2. On the first hand, writing accuracy is defined by the British Council (2008) as the correct use of language structures by the learner. According to this institution, language structure involves vocabulary, grammar and spelling. On the other hand, corrective feedback is defined by Loewen (2012) and Sheen (2007) as the provision of information about the wrong use of language.. In addition to the constructs, the theory that underpins my project is Exogenous Constructivism, defined by Moshman (1982) as a process in which knowledge is obtained from a reconstruction of learner’s knowledge (Behavior patterns, Social structures, presented information), considering the structures that the environment provides. Additionally, this theory explains that the environment provides the structures.

(24) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 24. that the learner must reconstruct, as a way of accommodation of structures into the pupil’s knowledge. This theory is related to my topic of research because there is a reconstruction or accommodation of knowledge. In my project, the participants will accommodate their prior knowledge (correction of errors), according to the errors identified in the correction development (knowledge provided by their environment), aiming to modify the students’ information and to sharp new and current knowledge in them..

(25) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 25. Chapter III Research Design This chapter is divided into three sections. The first discusses the research paradigm and type of study. The second describes the participants in this project. And the third section presents the data collection instruments and procedures used in this study.. Research Paradigm Qualitative Research is defined by Johnson & Christensen (2004) as a type of research in charge of observing, identifying and analyzing different behaviors in a determined context. In this paradigm, the researcher does not make any intervention in the context because this could change the behavior. In this specific case, I identified the students’ responses towards the presence of written feedback in their compositions. Additionally, Johnson & Christensen (2004) state that the Qualitative Paradigm intends to make descriptions about the different reactions acquired in a specific context. In my research study, I described the effects that Written Corrective Feedback provide to the L2 writing performance in the students.. Type of Study Donato (2003) defines Action Research as an inquiry process conducted by teacher – researchers, aiming to “create knowledge, propose and implement change, and improve practice and performance” (p. 1). I considered that this type of research fit in the procedure of this project because it allowed me to implement a proposal which.

(26) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 26. could result in a change in the classroom environment or the students’ learning development, even if the change is positive or negative. In Image 2, Ferrance (2000) explains that in Action Research, the researcher needs to follow a sequence of cyclical steps which include definition of the problem, data gathering, data interpretation, and reflection on the process. And, as this procedure is cyclical, it could be repeated as many times as necessary in the study.. Image 2: The cycle of Action Research Process (Ferrance, 2000).. In this study, I found some difficulties presented by the learners in terms of L2 writing structure, possibly, due to a misunderstanding of the feedback provided by the headroom teacher. To find the research problem where this project raised from, I applied two surveys (One for the students and one for the teacher) and I analyzed some written artifacts. After having confirmed the issue of this project, I planned lessons and activities in which the learners had to develop written compositions about a specific topic and following a specific genre. Furthermore, the pupils had to re – edit their assignments, according the feedback provided in terms of grammar and spelling..

(27) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 27. To complete this cycle, I collected the necessary data from the students’ artifacts and other instruments and I made an analysis of the information, looking for any positive effect of feedback on L2 writing accuracy. Additionally, this data identified if there were some elements of language which presented more benefit by the provision of feedback.. Participants The target population consisted of 35 tenth graders (21 boys and 14 girls) who studied in a school located in Bogotá. Their ages ranged from fifteen and eighteen years old and these participants studied English at the school two hours per week, in which the teacher tried to implement activities in English for a development of the four communicative skills, using as many resources the school has. In addition to this information, the home – room teacher used the L2 as much as possible in the classroom. Despite I developed this intervention with all these students, only 10 of them were selected for the data collection and analysis. I did the selection of the participants after the pedagogical intervention. I received papers from all the students, however, most of them were incomplete, it means, all the learners did not provide all the compositions to me. For that reason, I discarded the packages which missed one document. Additionally, I read each one of the documents I pre – selected and, after that, I discarded the workshops which contained less words and content and I preserved the rich ones..

(28) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 28. Data Collection Techniques Document collection is defined by Freeman (1998) as the compilation of different “sets of documents relevant to the research context, e.g., course overviews, lesson plans, students' writing, classroom materials /texts, assessment tasks/texts, student profiles, student records” (p. 93). In this research study, document collection was represented by the compositions written by the learners. Concerning observations, Freeman (1998) frames that Observation involves a close watching of the events presented in the classroom, making use of journals or logs to record every detail during the observation. This technique can be developed by the researcher as Participant Observer or Non – Participant Observer. In this project, I played the role of participant observer because, as I was the pre – service teacher, I interfered in the classroom when presenting the lesson and developed the tasks with my students. Finally, in relation to surveys, Freeman (1998) and Hopkins (2008) agree that, through questionnaires, the researcher obtains important information about students’ perceptions and reactions towards a specific activity or intervention. I applied two different surveys to find out the problem in the context I was immersed. Additionally, the participants completed a survey in which they had to state opinions, suggestions and reviews about the intervention.. Data Collection Instruments As teacher – researchers, it is necessary to collect data of the processes of inquiry and action in the study with a specific context. In this project, the instruments to be used in this investigation are students’ artifacts, diary journals and questionnaires..

(29) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 29. The students’ artifacts refer to the learners’ products derived from class activities). Artifacts were used in this project because activities such as reflective texts, opinions, narratives and others were the main source of data. These activities will allow the researcher to obtain data at first hand. In this project, the artifacts were seven compositions written by each one of the students (one assignment for each type of text) and the data collected in these workshops were the errors and corrections done by the learners. Another data collection instrument is the diary journal, which is defined by Grifee (2012) as “a document maintained by an individual writing a report to himself or herself on some topic area, such as learning a language or teaching a course” (p. 204). In this study, I wrote a journal entry by each class, describing important details from the lesson, including activities, actions and comments that the learners did in informal talks. Diary journals were important to my research because I think it is necessary to identify and describe different aspects related to writing development, reception of errors and application of corrections in compositions. Questionnaires constitute the fourth and last, collection instrument of defined by Hopkins (2008) as a “quick and simple way of obtaining broad and rich information from pupils” (p. 117). This data instrument let researchers ask questions about different issues related to learning or teaching practices. In this project, a questionnaire was applied for the students at the end of the intervention, looking for any improvement in the students’ writing proficiency and their reactions towards this intervention. Questionnaires were important to my research because, by using this data instrument, I was able to identify what they perceive about the advances, success or failures in terms of their L2 writing performance. The data collection instruments were expected to be applied in the classroom, following the schedule presented in Chart 2..

(30) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING Date. September 8th. Instrument. Who. Student’s Artifacts. Students. Journal. Teacher – Researcher. 30. What Errors found in the composition. Proficiency in L2 Writing. Classroom Observation Errors found in the composition.. September 22th. Student’s artifacts. Students. Journal. Teacher – Researcher. Proficiency in L2 Writing. Classroom Observation Errors found in the composition.. September 29th. October 13th. October 20th. October 27th. Student’s artifacts. Students. Journal. Teacher – Researcher. Classroom Observation. Student’s artifacts. Students. Errors found in the composition.. Journal. Teacher – Researcher. Proficiency in L2 Writing. Classroom Observation. Student’s artifacts. Students. Errors found in the composition.. Journal. Teacher – Researcher. Proficiency in L2 Writing. Classroom Observation. Student’s artifacts. Students. Errors found in the composition.. Journal. Teacher – Researcher. Student’s artifacts. Proficiency in L2 Writing.. Proficiency in L2 Writing.. Errors found in the composition. Students. November 3rd. Proficiency in L2 Writing. Self – Assessment. Survey Journal. Classroom Observation. Teacher – Researcher. Classroom Observation. Table 2: Tentative schedule of the application of data collection instruments. Source: Own..

(31) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 31. Chapter IV. Pedagogical Intervention This chapter involves the theoretical dimension of the pedagogical intervention in this study and includes eight sections. The first section addresses the theory of learning that leads this intervention. The second section explains a description of Task Based Learning (TBL), the pedagogical method that I took into consideration for applying this project. The third section illustrates the perception of language in TBL. The fourth section shows a presentation of the activities that the participants developed in the school. The fifth section makes a description of the model of development of each one of the activities planned in the intervention. The sixth section involves the students’ role when developing tasks. The seventh section is devoted to the roles that teachers take when assigning tasks. And, the final section defines the way of assessing the participants of this study. Before addressing the concerns mentioned above, it was necessary to provide the students a consent form, in which their parents authorized their participation in the research project. (See Annex 1).. Theory of Learning The Task Based Approach relies on the positive effectiveness of Tasks in language learning. Tasks involve an input – output process by the learner. Moreover, tasks can be negotiated between the teacher and the students to generate a learning environment. Finally, the learner gets motivated when he / she achieves a task, and this results in learning. (Richards and Rodgers, 2001)..

(32) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 32. Theory of Language According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), Task Based Instruction is founded on the principle that meaning is the first aspect to be bear in mind. Additionally, the assessment is focused on the outcome; the product done by the pupils. Moreover, Richards and Rodgers (2001) argue that vocabulary has an important place in Task Based Approach. It means that elements of language such as lexical phrases, collocations and discourse markers are not seen as simple words but a set of units to be processed and produced for creating language.. Pedagogical Method Richards & Rodgers (2001) define Task – Based Instruction as an approach which considers tasks as the most important element of instruction in language learning and teaching. Moreover, several people who have supported this approach have stated that activities with real communication, the inclusion of language and tasks, and language and meaning, are the key characteristics to determine effective learning in the pupil. Richards & Rodgers (2001) remark that, the most important contents to teach in the classroom are the ones related to the development of language (forms and functions, vocabulary, grammar, etc.). In this research study, I addressed different topics related to language structure and functions (Grammar, vocabulary, discourse markers, etc.), taking into consideration the syllabus for English Language for tenth graders. Furthermore, I made explanations related to the errors found in the students’ compositions and their respective corrections, referring the whole L2 writing skill only for a better learning development by the students. In this specific case, this study intended only to think about the issues related with Grammar and Spelling..

(33) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 33. Presentation of Activities The activities were related to composing different types of texts (arguments, stories, reflections, etc.). The following graph illustrates the sequence of activities developed in the intervention. Week. 1. Main Activity. 4. Data to be Collected. Composition of self – presentations.. To share, at least, five personal details to an audience.. Errors found in written self – introductions.. Creation of short stories.. To include five discourse markers in a narrative text.. Errors detected in short stories.. Generation of reflections about oneself.. To present three reflections about incomplete objectives in life.. Errors detected in reflective texts.. Construction of written debates about controversial topics.. To stablish a written dialog with other students about a specific topic.. Errors identified in argumentative texts.. Statement of past situations.. To present, at least, five sentences in past perfect, in an informative text. Errors found in news.. Elaboration of descriptions.. To write five characteristics about an object in a description.. Errors detected in descriptive texts.. Final test.. To demonstrate the theory and practice addressed in previous lessons on writing letters.. Errors found in personal letters.. 2. 3. Terminal Objective. 5. 6. 7. Table 3: Description of activities for this intervention.. Lesson Plan Three stages composed the lesson plan I designed. These were Pre-Task, Task and Post –Task. Chart 4 displays a sample of a lesson plan sequence used in one of the sessions (See other lesson plan samples in Annexes)..

(34) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 34. Lesson Plan Sequence Stage. Time. Pre – Task Have you done it yet?. 30 minutes. Student’s role The teacher will give the students the guides about the different adverbs which are used in present perfect (See Annex 1). Then, he will explain each adverb and will give examples of each one of them.. The students will pay attention to the explanations of the teacher and also, they will provide examples, including these adverbs.. The teacher will ask the students to write a text in which they write:. The learners are going to write a text in which they make a reflection about what they have done, what they have not done and what they have not finished.. Task Being reflective. 20 minutes. Post – Task What did you realize about yourself?. 10 minutes. Teacher’s role. * What they have already done in their lives. * What they have not done in their lives yet. * What they started doing but they have not finished. The teacher will organize the students by pairs. Then, he will ask them to share what they wrote in their reflections.. By pairs, the students will socialize their reflections, talking about the achievements and failures they have had in their lives.. Chart 4: Lesson plan sequence, based on Task-Based Approach.. In the pre–task phase, the learners were supposed to be ready to develop the task, guided by explanations of the different methods and tools useful for the achievement of the activity. In this study, the Pre – Task phase consisted of an explanation of the target structure to be learnt in the session and some vocabulary and discourse markers that the students could use in the creation of their compositions. To carry out this phase, I created worksheets which provided information about each one of the topics and the tasks (See the worksheets in Annexes) In the Task phase, the students developed the main task designed for the lesson, guided by the teacher who gave them advice about how to complete the activity as making decision (Ellis, 2009). In this project, the students had to complete each.

(35) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 35. workshop and I was an advisor who helped the learners making decisions about the personal topic and content of the assignment, the most appropriate language elements to use according to the intention of the writer and linguistic features such as vocabulary, verbs, connectors, etc. In the Post – Task phase, the students participated in an activity, related to the completion of the task but after doing it. In my project, it was thought about selecting one of the following types of activities: 1. A cooperative reflection about writing texts. 2. A socialization activity about the tasks created by the learners. 3. An activity related with the topic of the session.. Learners’ Role When developing tasks inside the classroom, students have to be very participatory, providing their contributions about the topic. Also, learners need to be more social, due to the fact that almost all the tasks planned in the classroom have to be developed by pairs or groups. In addition, it is necessary that the students put in practice their creative thinking and bear in mind how language is created since the first task until the final one. (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). In my research study, it was necessary that the participants of this intervention played two roles. On the first hand, the learners had to be very attentive of the corrections made, aiming to acquire a routine of no repetition of errors. On the other hand, they needed to be immersed in each lesson because they could get lost or confused when developing the tasks..

(36) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 36. Teacher’s role According to Richards and Rodgers (2001) the teacher has to be very careful when creating the tasks and following a pedagogical sequence of them. Moreover, he / she needs to develop a warming – up activity with the students by the way they get ready for the task. These recommendations are important to satisfy learners’ needs and preferences in terms of language learning. In my study, I carried out three functions. Firstly, I made a monitory of my learners’ progress in terms of writing proficiency, mediated by feedback. Secondly, I was a careful creator of lesson sequences and tasks, taking into deliberation the students’ English language level and their needs. Finally, I gave advice the learners, regarding the procedure of the tasks and due dates for handing them in to me.. Assessment In the intervention, the students were assessed. In each session, I provided feedback about his / her composition. After that, the learner had to correct it, following my comments. Finally, they handed in the new version of the workshop. In addition to this, the student might retain the corrections made in each composition, resulting in a behaviour of no repetition of errors at the end of the intervention. A list of conventions was used to guide the learners in the understanding of the errors provided. Chart 5 is composed by eleven symbols regarding grammar, spelling and language structure. In addition, each symbol has its respective meaning..

(37) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 37. EVALUATION SYMBOLS FOR WRITING PIECES Symbol. Description. WW. Wrong Word: the word used in the text is not correct.. WF. Wrong Form: the tense used in the text is not correct.. WO. Wrong Order: organize the words in the text.. SP. Spelling: there is a word which is written wrong.. Ʌ. Omission: there is something missed in the text.. Ø. Unnecessary word: omit that word.. C. Capitalization: Capitalize / Not capitalize that word.. NC. Incoherence: a word or sentence is not clear.. /. Connected structure: separate the words.. -. Separated structure: connect the words selected.. #. Nominalization: pluralize or singularize that word.. Table 5: Evaluation symbols for writing pieces.. In addition to remarking the symbols in the students’ papers, I provided comments about each error, without giving explicit information about the corrections. Image 3 presents a sample of comments about the errors..

(38) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 38. Image 3: Sample of comments about errors as feedback.. In terms of evaluation, I considered the grading scale determined by the school, it means, giving a grade between 1.0 and 5.0, addressing 1.0 as deficient and 5.0 as excellent. It is necessary to bear in mind that only the new version of each composition was assessed, according to the corrections made by the students in it. At the end of the intervention, all the grades each student has obtained were calculated to get an average score which represented the final grade for the last academic term. Finally, the students were assessed, following the criteria that appear below: Knowledge of what to do: The participants of this study were able to apply corrections of the errors remarked by the teacher in the composition of new versions of a specific activity. Knowledge of how to be: The learners were able to retain the corrections established in the re – editing of compositions, in the creation of new workshops..

(39) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 39. Chapter V. Data Analysis and Findings This section aims to display the analysis of the data collected in the pedagogical intervention. This section is divided into two sections. The first one presents the analysis of the students’ artifacts and questionnaires, taking into deliberation categories and classification of the errors detected by the researcher. And the second section addresses the findings after the intervention, characterized by a reduction and retention of the feedback by the learners, especially, in the use of specific pieces of language such as the past forms in grammar, and the combination “th” in spelling. The following chart illustrates the research questions that lead this project and its respective categories, in order to visualize the knowledge and discoveries that I have acquired along the development of this investigation..

(40) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING Question How may Indirect Feedback contribute to the development of L2 writing accuracy in a tenth grader?. Category. Linguistic Features. 40. Subcategories Errors and corrections in Grammar: Wrong Word. Errors and corrections in Grammar: Wrong Form. Errors and corrections in Spelling: Capitalization. Errors and corrections in Spelling: Plurals and Singulars Errors and corrections in Spelling: Addition and Omission.. Which features of L2 grammar and spelling were enhanced by indirect feedback in a tenth grader?. Errors and corrections in Spelling: Wrong Spelling. Students’ Perceptions. Students’ perception of the lessons. Students’ comprehension of feedback. Students’ reflection about their proficiency.. Chart 6: Categories and subcategories for the data analysis.. The analysis of data is represented by two main categories which are important to solve both research questions: Linguistic Features and Students’ Perceptions. On the first hand, Linguistic Features involves the findings in terms of grammatical construction of language. And, on the other hand, Students’ Perceptions includes what the students felt before, while and after the pedagogical intervention..

(41) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 41. Linguistic Features This category addresses the grammatical construction of language that the apprentices developed along the intervention. In this stage, I used the students’ artifacts, in order to get the findings in relation to construction of language. To analyze the compositions written by each one of the students, I developed a categorization of data, defined by Jacob (2004) as “the process of dividing the world into groups of entities whose members are in some way similar to each other” (p. 518). It means, categorization is grouping an important amount of elements, according to a matching of their characteristics. In this project, the students developed a correction of errors by following a list of ten conventions that guides each error in regards of language structure (See Chapter IV, Assessment). Those conventions concerned errors related to specific elements of language. Diagrams 1 and 2 display a categorization of the types of error which were involved in grammar and spelling, and, whose information was relevant for doing the analysis, in relation to the amount of errors and corrections in the compositions. In addition, each type of error included the possible form of that error.. Diagram 1: Categorization of grammar errors. Source: Own..

(42) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 42. Diagram 1 addresses the types of errors on grammar which appeared in the students’ artifacts. I divided this category into two categories: wrong word (errors in components of language) and wrong form (Errors in verb tenses).. Diagram 2: Categorization of spelling. Source: Own.. In diagram 2, I classified this category into four sub – categories: Capitalization (wrong capital and non - capital letters), Order (wrong addition or omission of letters in a word), Plurals and Singulars (Wrong use of plural forms) and Wrong Spelling (a letter which does not make sense in a word). After categorizing errors, I identified the frequency of the errors commited by the students in each one of the categories established in the diagrams previously presented. To develop this step of the analysis, I used contingency tables. This type of charts helps the researcher to distribute and summarize specific information collected (Pensilvania State University, n.d). The following charts show the frecuencies in which the students committed their errors and followed the feedback provided by me in each main category of grammar and spelling..

(43) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 43. Errors and Corrections in Grammar: Wrong Word. The category Wrong Word (WW) concerns a wrong use of a word. This category involves nouns, prepositions, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, connectors and useful expressions. Chart 7 explains the frequency of grammatical errors that the students committed along the six activities and the final workshop. Grammar: Wrong Word SS. Presentation. Narrative. Reflective. Argumentativ. Descriptive. Informative. Final. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. S1. 4. 1. 9. 5. 7. 2. 7. 1. 15. 4. 8. 4. 8. S2. 3. 2. 6. 4. 6. 3. 8. 2. 8. 3. 7. 4. 7. S3. 8. 3. 8. 6. 3. 1. 8. 5. 10. 6. 9. 4. 7. S4. 7. 5. 9. 5. 9. 3. 6. 2. 6. 5. 9. 2. 11. S5. 7. 4. 12. 7. 9. 5. 8. 4. 5. 3. 4. 2. 6. S6. 1. 1. 10. 4. 6. 4. 7. 2. 14. 10. 6. 3. 8. S7. 4. 4. 5. 1. 8. 3. 5. 3. 13. 5. 8. 4. 8. S8. 8. 4. 5. 1. 7. 4. 1. 1. 10. 5. 5. 3. 13. S9. 4. 3. 7. 2. 4. 2. 9. 6. 11. 7. 5. 1. 9. S10. 6. 4. 13. 7. 7. 9. 7. 1. 8. 6. 3. 2. 8. Chart 7: Frequency of errors regarding wrong words in the whole process.. Chart 6 illustrates the amount of wrong words that the students wrote along the six main activities and the final workshop. Most of the errors were present in the narrative and descriptive texts because these types of compositions were longer than the others. Additionally, in terms of mistaking, the students committed more errors in prepositions, verbs and nouns than in the other sub – categories because of the amount of times these pieces of language were used in each workshop. Excerpt 5, 6 and 7 represent a compilation of errors involving the mentioned previously..

(44) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 44. Excerpt 5: Wrong verbs in a written presentation. Source: Student.. Excerpt 6: Wrong pronouns in a narrative. Source: Student.. Excerpt 7: Confusion of nouns in an argumentative text. Source: Student.. These errors could be attributed to two factors. On the first hand, the pupils rely completely on online translators (especially Google translator), applications that, sometimes, provide unclear translations that the students acquire to express themselves in English. And on the other hand, the students may believe that two words have the same meaning, without considering that they are pronouns, verbs, nouns or adjectives. For example, some students confused the verb “Travel” with the noun “Trip” and others confused the personal pronoun “She” or “He” with their possessive forms. Regarding the correction of errors, the students corrected their errors in all the types of words, when re – editing each composition. Nevertheless, this process was partially done, it means, the apprentices did not correct all the errors remarked by me. Excerpts 8 and 9 aims to make a comparison between the second version of the compositions presented in previous excerpts..

(45) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 45. Excerpt 8: Second version of a written presentation. Source: Student.. Excerpt 9: second version of a narrative. Source: Student.. In Excerpt 8, the student attended the feedback provided by me and changed the verb used in the first version by a verb which is more appropriated to the context. Different proof is in Excerpt 9, where the student did not attend the feedback and, although this person did not omit the feedback, he / she changed the error by another wrong word. In addition, the apprentices did not retain the feedback provided along the development of the activities because, as Excerpts 10, 11 and 12 illustrate, there were some errors that appear in other compositions, possibly, because the student forgot or did not pay attention to the corrections.. Excerpt 10: Error and correction on wrong word in a written presentation. Source: Student..

(46) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 46. Excerpt 11: Correction in a written presentation. Source: Student.. Excerpt 12: Error in an argumentative text. Source: Student.. In excerpt 10, this learner confused the verb “Hear” with the noun “Hair”. Moreover, he / she intended to use a verb whose function is not adequate to the context of the sentence. This could be attributed by a lack of knowledge by the pupil, in relation to language functions. In Excerpt 11, this student corrected the error, using a more suitable verb. However, in Excerpt 12, this apprentice committed the same error in a composition assigned three weeks later. In this case, a lack of attention and memory by the learner could be the core factor in the emission of the error.. Errors and Corrections in Grammar: Wrong Form The category “wrong form” involves errors related to verbs whose conjugations are not appropriate in the context of the text (Present instead of part, future instead of present, etc.). This may occur when the writer includes unnecessary particles in a verb, changing the tense wrongly (e.g. the suffix –ED for regular past forms, the suffix –S or –ES in present for the third person of singular). In addition, the writer could change the verb, making it uncoherent with the context of the text (e.g. changing the correct irregular past form, confusing the auxiliaries “will” and “going to”)..

(47) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 47. Chart 8 displays the frequency of errors related to wrong tense that the students committed along the six main activities and the final workshop. Grammar: Wrong Form SS. Presentation. Narrative. Reflective. Argumentative. Descriptive. Informative. Final. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. S1. 2. 0. 9. 5. 2. 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 3. 1. 4. S2. 3. 1. 6. 2. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 2. 4. 1. 3. S3. 1. 1. 9. 3. 1. 0. 5. 2. 3. 2. 3. 1. 3. S4. 1. 0. 4. 1. 2. 0. 3. 1. 3. 0. 4. 1. 2. S5. 1. 1. 8. 3. 2. 0. 3. 0. 4. 2. 0. 0. 2. S6. 2. 0. 7. 2. 1. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. S7. 3. 1. 7. 4. 4. 2. 4. 0. 2. 2. 3. 1. 2. S8. 2. 0. 9. 4. 3. 0. 3. 2. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. S9. 2. 1. 5. 1. 3. 1. 6. 3. 7. 4. 4. 3. 2. S10. 4. 1. 6. 1. 5. 2. 4. 0. 3. 2. 3. 2. 4. Chart 8: Frequency of tense errors in the activities.. In Chart 7, most of the errors that the learners committed were present in the narrative, the argumentative and the informative text. It could be possible because these types of compositions involve telling actions. Moreover, most of the errors that appeared in all the compositions were related to the use of past forms, possibly, due to the intention of the texts; four of the six main activities were intended to talk about actions that happened in the past and there were less opportunities to put in practice present tenses and even, future forms. Excerpt 13 shows a sample of the tense errors in the students’ artifacts..

(48) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 48. Excerpt 13: Past tense error in a narrative. Source: Student.. Excerpt 14: Present tense error in an argumentative text. Source: Student.. Excerpt 15: Future tense in an informative text. Source: Student.. In Excerpt 13, the learner omitted the suffix -ED when writing the verb in past. And, in Excerpt 14, the student included the suffix -S in the verb, considering that the subject of the sentence is plural. In both cases, this could happen because the pupils forgot the grammatical rules. In addition, in Excerpt 15, the apprentice included the future form “Going to” when it was more appropriated to use the auxiliary “Will”, possibly, due to a confusion by the learner, of the functions of both future forms. In terms of correction of errors and retention of feedback, this case is similar to the presented in the previous section. Excerpt 16, 17 and 18 illustrate that some students attended the feedback partially and corrected some of the errors detected, while the others decided to omit the error or eliminate the error without replacing it with another word, causing a lack of coherence in the text..

(49) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 49. Excerpt 16: Errors and corrections in past tense in a reflective text. Source: Student.. Excerpt 17: Omission of feedback in a narrative text. Source: Student.. Excerpt 18: Deletion of an error in a narrative text. Source: Student.. It is important to highlight that the majority of the feedback that the pupils attended, involved past forms, especially, the addition of the suffix -ED. Excerpts 19, 20 and 21 demonstrate that some students included verbs in present where they had to be in past, but, in the new version, they corrected those errors. Moreover, along each activity, there was an important reduction of this type of errors..

(50) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 50. Excerpt 19: Tense error in a written presentation. Source: Student.. Excerpt 20: Correction in tense of a re – edited written presentation. Source: Student.. Excerpt 21: Sample of the use of past tense in a letter. Source: Student.. In Excerpt 19, the student wrote a verb in present, when it had to be in past. In Excerpt 20, the same learner corrected that error, writing the past form of the verb. And, in Excerpt 21, this pupil wrote several verbs in past, without committing errors. This type of errors can be attributed to the fact that most of the apprentices could record a simple rule of past simple tense: add -ED at the end of a regular verb. I may infer that this rule was easier to remember by the learners than other rules related to the form of a word or function of a preposition. After analyzing the data related with grammatical errors, it was found that the students were able to correct part of their errors when writing the second draft of each activity and, by this way, they reduced the number of misapplications in all elements of language (e.g. Pronouns, verbs, present tense, past tense and others). Nonetheless, in.

(51) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 51. reference to retention of feedback, a significant number of students presented a decrease of errors in the past form, especially, the addition of the suffix -ED. This, represented by a lower number of this type of errors along each composition and a few presences of them in the final workshop.. Errors and Corrections in Spelling: Capitalization In this section, the data selected for its analysis was composed by errors regarding capitalization, for instance, omission of capital letters when writing names or their addition where they are not necessary. Chart 9 addresses the frequency of errors in capitalization among the six activities, previous to the final workshop. Spelling: Capitalization SS. Presentation. Narrative. Reflective. Argumentativ. Descriptive. Informative. Final. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. S1. 6. 4. 3. 1. 1. 0. 4. 2. 7. 3. 4. 0. 2. S2. 3. 1. 4. 3. 3. 0. 3. 1. 4. 1. 2. 1. 1. S3. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 0. 3. 2. 2. S4. 2. 2. 6. 4. 4. 3. 5. 2. 3. 0. 1. 0. 2. S5. 4. 1. 2. 1. 5. 3. 3. 2. 2. 1. 0. 0. 3. S6. 3. 0. 1. 1. 2. 0. 1. 1. 4. 3. 5. 2. 2. S7. 2. 1. 4. 1. 3. 1. 4. 1. 5. 2. 3. 1. 2. S8. 1. 1. 2. 0. 4. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. S9. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 4. 3. 2. 0. 1. 0. 2. S10. 5. 3. 2. 1. 3. 0. 0. 0. 4. 1. 1. 1. 2. Chart 9: Frequency of errors in capitalization..

(52) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 52. According to the data presented in this graph, almost all the students committed an important amount of errors in the first version of each activity, this error was mostly evident in words that follow a period or in names (Omission of capital letters). Excerpts 22 and 23 display the inclusion of the error by the pupils in terms of capitalization, and also, its correction.. Excerpt 22: Error in capitalization in a written presentation. Source: Student.. Excerpt 23: Second version of a written presentation. Source: Student.. In Excerpt 22, a learner committed an error, forgetting to capitalize the first letter of a name, in this case, of a city. And, in Excerpt 23, when presenting the second version of the same activity, it was found that the student included capital letters in the name. This action may be caused by a topic of ignorance by the learners, mainly, because they could not know that the grammatical rules towards capitalization are the same, as in the L1 as in the L2. In addition, most of the students could reduce their errors, even if the reduction were little or significant. Notwithstanding, the students did not remember the correct forms along the sessions, as evidenced in Excerpts 24 and 25..

(53) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 53. Excerpt 24: Errors and corrections on capitalization in a narrative. Source: Student.. Excerpt 25: Errors on capitalization in an argumentative text. Source: Student.. It is important to highlight that, although the students committed an important number of errors when omitting capital letters, they also inserted capital letters where there is no necessary to do it, even, writing a whole word or sentence with capitals, as exposed in Excerpt 26.. Excerpt 26: Error on capitalization in a letter. Source: Student.. This may be normal in the learners. It is important to remark that they have to memorize a large number of details every day in the school, and the feedback provided in the intervention is part of the list of information the apprentices learn. Based on that, the fact that they forget the correction of the errors could be attributed to an overload of information that they receive in the institution..

(54) THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING. 54. Another factor that leads to this type of errors could be how the learner is used to do something in a specific way. In this case, if a person writes using only capital letters, he / she get used to this action, until the moment when realizing of the error. According to this statement, some learners use capital letters for writing whole words, and even, sentences because they could take it as a routine.. Errors and Corrections in Spelling: Singulars and Plurals The following data concerns errors related to plural and singular forms. For example, a word which is in plural and had to be in singular, and vice versa. Chart 10 presents the frequency of errors committed by the learners in the whole process. Spelling: Plurals and Singulars SS. Presentation. Narrative. Reflective. Argumentativ. Descriptive. Informative. Final. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. V1. V2. S1. 2. 1. 2. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. S2. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 1. 1. S3. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. S4. 2. 1. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 3. 0. 0. S5. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 3. 2. 2. 2. 2. 1. 1. S6. 0. 0. 2. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 2. 0. 0. 1. S7. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 1. 1. 0. 2. S8. 1. 0. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. S9. 0. 0. 2. 0. 2. 0. 2. 2. 2. 0. 0. 0. 1. S10. 1. 0. 2. 2. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 3. 2. 1. Chart 10: Frequency of errors regarding singulars and plurals.. In this graph, most errors detected in the first versions were not in the second ones, nonetheless, the number of errors detected in each activity was constant (e.g..