Running Head: THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 1
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
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 2
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
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 3
Note of Acceptance.
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
Thesis Director: ______________________
Thesis Juror: ______________________
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 4
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”.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 Problem or issue
Population
and length of
study
Research
method Results
1
Ferris &
Roberts
(2001)
There is no conclusion
about the explicitness of
WCF to improve students’
accuracy when self –
editing their assignments.
44 students
from a
composition
class in an
institution in
California.
Experimental
Research
In self – editing, Indirect WCF is more
effective to improve accuracy in
categories such as word choice or
structure.
Six months.
2 Chandler
(2003)
Current evidence on the
effectiveness of WCF is
insufficient.
31 music
undergraduate
students from
an institution Experimental
Research
Students who were asked to correct
their errors could improve their writing
accuracy.
Six months.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 18
Author,
year Problem or issue
Population
and length of
study
Research
method Results
3
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.
53 migrant
adult students.
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. 12 months.
4
Beuningen,
C.; de Jong,
N. &
Kuiken, F.
(2008)
There are no clear
conclusions about the
effectiveness of feedback
in the long – term.
62 secondary
students from
Dutch school
whose L1 is
not German.
Not specified
Direct WCF is the most effective for a
specific context for improving writing
accuracy in the short – term and the
long – term.
5
Bitchener &
Knoch
(2008)
There is a need of further
evidence about the
effectiveness of WCF in
accuracy.
144 migrant
ESL students
in Auckland,
New Zealand. Not specified
The students could improve their
accuracy when using specific linguistic
elements in writing.
Two months.
6
Ellis, R.;
Sheen, Y.;
Murakami,
M. &
Takashima,
H. (2008)
The effectiveness of WCF
on writing in EFL, focused
on articles.
46 Japanese
students Quasi –
experimental
Research.
Exposure to WCF benefit the learners
in the improvement of writing
accuracy, benefit which could be
durable in the long term. 15 weeks.
7
Sheen, Y.;
Wright, D. &
Moldawa, A.
(2009)
It is necessary to define a
variety of linguistic
features to be treated
through WCF.
Five native
teachers and
80
intermediate
students from
an institution
in the US.
Quasi -
experimental
Research
Correcting students’ work helps
learners to improve writing accuracy
instead of providing it.
Eight weeks.
8 Beuningen
(2011)
(Johnson & Christensen,
2004)
66 students
from a Dutch
secondary
school whose
their L1 is not
German.
Not specified Direct and Indirect WCF more
effective than self – correction.
9
Farrokhi &
Sattarpour
(2012)
Although there is research
on the effectiveness of
WCF, there is a need of
research on which
feedback method is more
appropriated to improve
writing accuracy.
60 high –
proficient
students from a
university in
Iran.
Quasi –
experimental
Research.
Focused and unfocused WCF were
effective to improve students’
accuracy, however, direct WCF had
more significant effects than the
indirect one.
Five weeks.
10
Maleki &
Eslami
(2013)
There is a need of more
research about the effects
of direct and indirect WCF.
90
intermediate
English
students from
an institute in
Iran.
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. Three times
per week, for
12 weeks.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 19
Author,
year Problem or issue
Population
and length of
study
Research
method Results
11 Eslami
(2014)
There is a lack of evidence
on the effectiveness of
WCF to improve writing
accuracy.
60 low –
intermediate
students from
an institute in
Iran.
Not specified.
The application of WCF helped
learners to develop their writing
accuracy skill.
12 weeks.
12
Fazilatfar,
A.; Fallah,
N.;
Hamavandi,
M. &
Rostamian,
M. (2014)
Evidence of the benefits of
Indirect WCF.
30 advanced
L2 learners Quasi –
experimental
Research.
The students presented an
improvement of syntax and lexical
complexity of writing compositions. Three months.
13
Villalba, A.
& Martinez,
F. (2014)
Effectiveness of WCF on
B2 adult learners’
accuracy.
21 B2 adult
learners. Mixed
Research.
Direct WCF is more effective in
improving L2 accuracy when applying
adverbs of manner. Not specified.
14 Frear & Chiu
(2015)
Comparative effectiveness
between direct and indirect
WCF.
66
undergraduate
Chinese
students from
an institute in
Iran.
Quasi –
experimental
Research.
There were no differences between the
effectiveness of direct and indirect
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 30
Date Instrument Who What
September 8th
Student’s
Artifacts
Students
Errors found in the
composition.
Proficiency in L2 Writing.
Journal
Teacher – Researcher
Classroom Observation
September 22th
Student’s
artifacts
Students
Errors found in the
composition.
Proficiency in L2 Writing.
Journal
Teacher – Researcher
Classroom Observation
September 29th
Student’s
artifacts
Students
Errors found in the
composition.
Proficiency in L2 Writing.
Journal
Teacher – Researcher
Classroom Observation
October 13th
Student’s
artifacts
Students
Errors found in the
composition.
Proficiency in L2 Writing.
Journal Teacher – Researcher Classroom Observation
October 20th
Student’s
artifacts
Students
Errors found in the
composition.
Proficiency in L2 Writing.
Journal Teacher – Researcher Classroom Observation
October 27th
Student’s
artifacts
Students
Errors found in the
composition.
Proficiency in L2 Writing.
Journal Teacher – Researcher Classroom Observation
November 3rd
Student’s
artifacts
Students
Errors found in the
composition.
Proficiency in L2 Writing.
Survey
Self – Assessment
Journal
Teacher – Researcher
Classroom Observation
Table 2: Tentative schedule of the application of data collection instruments.
Source: Own.
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).
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.
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 Main Activity Terminal Objective Data to be Collected
1
Composition of self –
presentations.
To share, at least, five
personal details to an
audience.
Errors found in written self
– introductions.
2
Creation of short stories. To include five discourse
markers in a narrative text.
Errors detected in short
stories.
3
Generation of reflections
about oneself.
To present three reflections
about incomplete objectives
in life.
Errors detected in reflective
texts.
4
Construction of written
debates about controversial
topics.
To stablish a written dialog
with other students about a
specific topic.
Errors identified in
argumentative texts.
5
Statement of past situations. To present, at least, five
sentences in past perfect, in
an informative text
Errors found in news.
6
Elaboration of descriptions. To write five characteristics
about an object in a
description.
Errors detected in
descriptive texts.
7
Final test. To demonstrate the theory
and practice addressed in
previous lessons on writing
letters.
Errors found in personal
letters.
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).
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 34
Lesson Plan Sequence
Stage Time Student’s role Teacher’s role
Pre – Task
Have you done
it yet?
30 minutes
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.
Task
Being
reflective
20 minutes
The teacher will ask the students to
write a text in which they write:
* 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 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.
Post – Task
What did you
realize about
yourself?
10 minutes
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
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.
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.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 37
EVALUATION SYMBOLS FOR WRITING PIECES
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.
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.
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.
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.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 40
Question Category Subcategories
How may Indirect Feedback
contribute to the development of
L2 writing accuracy in a tenth
grader?
Linguistic Features
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 55
Some assignments had one error, others contained two errors). This means that the
learners did not reduce the number of errors about plurals and singulars. Excerpts 26
and 27 exemplify how some students committed errors of plural or singular nouns in the
first version of the workshops, errors which were corrected in the re – edition process.
However, the pupils made other errors in following assignments, in this case, the error
was repeated.
Excerpt 26: Errors and corrections on plurals and singulars in a written presentation.
Source: Student.
Excerpt 27: Error on pluralization in a descriptive text.
Source: Student.
This type of failures is possibly caused by two factors. On the first hand, the
students did not review the feedback provided in previous compositions. And, on the
other hand, the learners checked their corrections but they could not remember them at
the moment of drafting the texts.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 56
Errors and Corrections in Spelling: Addition and Omission of Letters
This category includes errors concerned with vowels or consonants which are
unnecessary or missing in a word. Chart 11 exposes the frequency of letter that the
learners added or omitted along the intervention.
Spelling: Addition and Omission of Letters
SS Presentation Narrative Reflective Argumentativ Descriptive Informative Final
V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2
S1 5 1 8 2 7 4 4 0 3 1 3 0 3
S2 7 2 6 1 8 4 3 1 5 2 1 0 2
S3 5 2 7 2 4 1 5 3 6 5 2 1 4
S4 3 1 7 4 5 2 3 1 3 2 5 2 1
S5 4 0 2 0 4 3 6 3 3 1 1 0 2
S6 7 3 3 2 4 0 4 1 4 0 2 1 4
S7 5 3 9 5 5 1 5 2 2 0 4 1 4
S8 1 0 7 3 4 1 3 1 2 2 5 3 3
S9 6 1 3 0 3 0 3 2 2 1 3 1 1
S10 6 8 3 1 3 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 5
Chart 11: Frequency of errors related to addition and omission of letters.
In this table, the students committed errors in this category, nevertheless, there
was a tendency to omit letters in a word. Excerpts 29 and 30 demonstrate that some
learners forgot to include letters when drafting the workshops.
Excerpt 29: Errors and corrections on omission of letters in a narrative text.
Source: Learner.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 57
Excerpt 30: Errors on omission of letters in an argumentative text.
Source: Learner.
In Excerpts 29 and 30, several pupils wrote some words without one letter. This
may be attributed to a confusion by the students. In some cases, some students wrote a
word, according to its pronunciation. And, in other cases, some words are written, based
on its form in the L1.
Although several students omitted letters in their texts, they also added letters
where it was not necessary to do it. Excerpts 31 and 32 illustrates the addition of
unnecessary letters in the learners’ workshops.
Excerpt 31: Errors and corrections on addition of letters in a narrative.
Source: Pupil.
Excerpt 32: Errors on addition of letters in a descriptive text.
Source: Pupil.
Finally, it is important to remark that in both cases, addition and omission of
letters, the learners did not keep a behavior of retention of the feedback provided. As
consequence, the apprentices committed errors on this category in the final workshop,
as evidenced in Excerpt 33.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 58
Excerpt 33: Error on addition of letters in a letter.
Source: Apprentice.
Errors and Corrections in Spelling: Wrong Spelling
This category is devoted to present the data collected towards two main aspects
inside wrong spelling. The first aspect to address in this section is the use of wrong
vowels and consonants in a word.
Chart 12 displays the frequency of wrong vowels and consonants that the pupils
included when drafting their compositions.
Spelling: Wrong Vowels and Consonants
SS Presentation Narrative Reflective Argumentativ Descriptive Informative Final
V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2
S1 2 1 2 1 1 0 4 0 2 0 5 2 3
S2 2 0 3 2 3 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 1
S3 3 1 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 3 1 3
S4 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 5 2 4 1 3
S5 3 1 2 1 4 2 2 0 4 1 3 2 0
S6 2 2 2 0 4 2 2 2 2 0 7 3 3
S7 5 3 4 0 5 0 3 1 4 2 2 0 2
S8 0 0 3 1 1 0 4 1 2 0 2 2 2
S9 0 0 4 2 3 2 2 0 1 0 3 1 3
S10 2 0 4 1 3 2 2 0 3 1 4 0 3
Chart 12: Frequency of errors on wrong letters along the intervention.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 59
In this table, the students committed an important number of errors related to
wrong letters. In a deeper analysis, it was found that the wrong consonants were more
than the wrong vowels. Furthermore, several students presented a significant reduction
of errors when re – editing each composition. Nonetheless, several learners did not
remember the feedback provided when designing a new composition. Regarding wrong
vowels, Excerpt 34 shows the inclusion of an incorrect vowel in a word, and also, its
correction by the pupil.
Excerpt 34: Error and correction on wrong vowels in a reflective text.
Source: Pupil.
In this sample, the student confused two vowels when writing the highlighted
word, and this is a very common error between beginner – level – learners. Sometimes,
we think that the word “Responsibility” contains the vowel “a” instead of the vowel “i”,
and this can be attributed to the thought in which some people consider that some words
in English sound and are written like in Spanish.
In relation to wrong consonants, the number of errors were more significant than
the wrong vowels. Moreover, all the learners reduced part of the errors detected in the
first draft in the process of re – edition. Nevertheless, any student demonstrated a
retention of the feedback along the development of the workshops. Excerpts 35 and 36
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 60
illustrate a compilation of errors and corrections made by an apprentice in a fragment of
a composition. And also, the reflect of the comments provided in the final task.
Excerpt 35: Errors and corrections on wrong consonants in a reflective text.
Source: Student.
Excerpt 36: Sample of a letter.
Source: Student.
In Excerpt 35, this student disorganized a word, changed a letter of three other
words. For the cases of the words “Firts”, “Thind” and “Habe”, these errors could be
caused by a lack of attention by the pupil, on the syllabic structure of words.
Nonetheless, the error “Live” may be credited to a confusion of the noun “Life” and the
verb “Live”. Possibly, this learner did not remember the difference between the words
previously remarked.
The second aspect to explain inside the category “wrong spelling” is the misuse
of combination of letters (e.g. “th”, “sh”, “ch”) in a word, possibly represented in a
change of the order of these combinations or its omission or an unnecessary addition.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 61
Chart 13 shows how many times the students used a combination of letters
incorrectly.
Spelling: Combination of letters
SS Presentation Narrative Reflective Argumentativ Descriptive Informative Final
V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2
S1 3 2 4 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
S2 4 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
S3 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
S4 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
S5 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
S7 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
S8 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
S9 3 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
S10 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chart 13: Frequency of errors on combination of letters.
According to this graph, the learners reduced their errors related to combination
of consonants when writing the second draft of each exercise. Most of the pupils
presented a significant reduction of errors in the first five sessions, and the majority of
the workshops corresponding to the last lessons did not contain this type of mistakes. As
additional detail, most of the errors detected made reference of the combination “th”,
especially, in the word “With”. Excerpts 37 and 38 illustrate a piece of a student’s
narrative text with an error on the combination mentioned above and its respective
correct form. And additionally, a piece of an informative text, in which the same learner
included the correct form in discussion.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 62
Excerpt 37: Errors and corrections on combination of consonants in a narrative.
Source: Student.
Excerpt 38: A piece of an informative text.
Source: Student.
According to the analysis of the data concerned with spelling, the majority of the
pupils presented reduction of errors and retention of feedback about the categories
mentioned in this project. However, the positive effects of this intervention were clearer
in the category “Combination”, in which the learners did not commit errors or produced
few of them.
Finally, based on the artifacts produced by the learners, it was found that they
performed a reduction and a behavior of no repetition of errors in all language pieces
related to grammar and spelling. Nevertheless, indirect feedback generated more
effectiveness in the correction of errors regarding past tenses and the combination of the
“th”.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 63
Students’ Perceptions
This category implies identifying and analyzing the thoughts that the apprentices
had about issues such as the development of lessons and activities, the written feedback
that the teacher provided the learners, the environment of the class, the teacher’s
behavior towards the school and the learners, among others.
I created a survey to find what the learners perceived, thought and learned along
the intervention. This questionnaire consisted of three questions which addressed the
students’ perceptions of the lessons, the students’ comprehension of feedback and the
students’ reflection about their proficiency. Additionally, each one of them had options
to choose and a space where the pupils had the opportunity to write the reasons of your
election. As difference of the participants who were involved in this study, the survey
was applied to 35 students, nevertheless, I selected 28 surveys because the other fifteen
contained vague answers, even, some questions were not answered.
To complete the analysis of each one of the questions, I decided to use circle
graphs, in which I could represent the recurrence of the answers. It is important to
remark that I developed a categorization of the answers of the open questions, taking
into consideration the main topic of the answers.
In addition to the surveys, the head – room teacher asked the students to write
some comments about the pedagogical intervention. The information provided by them
was considered as complementary data.
Chart 14 illustrates the answers that most of the pupils wrote in each one of the
questions.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 64
Question Answers
1 Considera que las actividades y clases
desarrolladas por el practicante fueron…
Interesantes.
Fructíferas
¿Por qué? Por el ambiente de la clase.
El feedback que el practicante proveía.
2 ¿Usted considera que la retroalimentación
que el practicante hizo en sus escritos fue
comprensible?
Más o menos.
¿Por qué? Sobrecarga de información
3 ¿Usted aprendió o mejoró su escritura en
inglés a través de la intervención hecha
por el practicante?
Si.
Si la respuesta es SI, mencione que
aprendió durante las clases.
Cómo escribir textos
Verbos en pasado.
Extra Comentarios Extra. Corrección de errores.
Aprender cómo narrar y argumentar.
Fomentar la participación a través de la escritura y
la lectura en inglés.
Chart 14: summary of answers in the questionnaire.
The first question, which aimed to identify the reactions the students presented
towards the intervention in general (Environment, lessons, activities, etc.), they stated
that the classes were interesting and fruitful because of the feedback and how the
teacher developed the class. Diagrams 3 and 4 illustrate the percentages of opinions
regarding the first question.
Diagram 3: Answers to the first question of the questionnaire.
43%
14%25%
18%
Pregunta 1: Considera que las actividades y clases desarrolladas
por el practicante fueron...
Interesantes
Aburridas
Fructíferas
Graciosas
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 65
Diagram 4: Why were the classes interesting, boring, worthy or fun?
In diagram 3, 86% of the students provided positive comments about the classes
in general. They considered that the classes were interesting, worthy and fun. In
Diagram 4, most of the students argued that the most important factor that was present
in the intervention was the environment of the class. They said that the lessons
presented by the pre – service teacher were dynamic, participatory and not aggressive,
the last one means that the practitioner developed the classes slowly, bearing in mind
the level of the students.
Other students stated that the intervention was fun because the practitioner did
not behave as serious as other teachers at the school; he used an informal way of talking
and, sometimes, he took real – life cases to exemplify the topics. In addition to these
arguments, another group of pupils said that feedback became the most important factor
that made the class positive and fruitful. According to them, thanks to the feedback
provided by the pre – service teacher, they improved their writing proficiency. Excerpt
39 reveals one of the students’ opinions towards the first question.
39%
21%
11%
29%
¿Por qué?
Ambiente de laclase
Temáticas de laclase
Actitud delpracticante
Feedback
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 66
Excerpt 39: Positive comments about the intervention.
Source: Student.
In the second question, which referred to the level of understanding to the
feedback in the compositions, most of the students could understand part of the
comments and symbols that I wrote in their texts. Diagrams 5 and 6 display the
learners’ answers to this question.
Diagram 5: Students’ answers to the second question of the survey.
Diagram 5: Why did they understand or did not understand the feedback?
21%
25%54%
Pregunta 2: ¿Usted sintió que la retroalimentación que el
practicante hizo en sus escritos fue comprensible?
Si
No
Más o menos
21%
25%54%
¿Por qué?
Lenguajesimple
Comentatiosconfusos
Sobrecarga deinformaciòn
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 67
These diagrams illustrate that most learners understood the feedback provided
partially because, according to them, there were many comments and it was difficult to
pay attention to all of them. However, they followed part of the feedback to correct
some types of errors. In spite of this, another group of students stated that they did not
understood the comments because they were confusing. Finally, the smallest group of
pupils argue that they achieved understanding the feedback provided because the
practitioner used simple language to write the comments.
Except 40 reveals that one of the learners who comprehended part of the
feedback on their assignments.
Excerpt 40: Argument about understanding the feedback.
Source: Student.
Finally, the third question of the survey concerned the elements that the learner
acquired through understanding feedback and correcting errors. Regarding this issue,
most of the students expressed that they could improve their proficiency in using the
past form of the verbs. Diagrams 7 and 8 demonstrates the aspects in which they
enhanced.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 68
Diagram 7: Learner’s perspectives about their learning process.
Diagram 8: What did the learners learned from this experience?
In these diagrams, most of the students thought that they learned the past forms
thought the intervention. Additionally, other students stated that they learned other
elements such as grammar, composition, rhetorical organization, spelling and
vocabulary.
It is necessary to highlight that several students agreed that they learned how to
write the verbs in past, in which cases they had to be with the suffix –ED (Regular
86%
14%
Pregunta 3: ¿Usted aprendió o mejoró su escritura en inglés a través de la intervención hecha
por el practicante?
Si
No
28%
11%21%
11%
18%
11%
Si la respuesta es SI, mencione que cosas aprendó durante las clases.
Pasado de losverbos
Voabulario
Cómo escribirtextos
Ortografía
Verbos modales
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 69
verbs) and in which cases they did not include that suffix (Irregular verbs). Excerpt 41
supports this statement.
Excerpt 41: Self – evaluation towards writing process.
Source: Student.
As additional data, the head – room teacher asked the students to write a
paragraph, expressing their thoughts, perceptions and observations about the
pedagogical intervention. Most of the learners who participated in the exercise agreed
that the intervention was useful because they strengthened their knowledge about past
simple. In addition, they evaluated as positive my role as a pre – service teacher when
applying feedback in the students’ compositions. Excerpts 42 and 43 support the pupils’
statements.
Excerpts 42 and 43: Observations about the pedagogical intervention.
Source: Students.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 70
General Results
The results of this analysis demonstrated that most of the students followed the
process of correction of errors in grammar and spelling. Additionally, as expected, the
reduction of errors and retention of corrections were more evident in some specific
pieces of language. For instance, in the category “grammar”, this intervention was more
effective when correcting errors of the past form. Excerpts 44, 45 and 46 support this
statement.
Excerpt 44: Error detected in a narrative text.
Source: Learner.
Excerpt 45: Sample of the second version of a narrative.
Source: Learner.
Except 46: Sample of the final activity.
Source: Learner.
In Excerpt 44, I detected the error in the sentence, in this case, wrong form. In
Excerpt 45, the student modified the wrong verb in the second version (Post –
feedback). Finally, in Excerpt 46, the student maintained the form in the final activity.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 71
Similar evidence was found in Excerpts 47, 48 and 49, in which another student
presented the same effect than the previous one, as in the re – edition as in the design of
new pieces of writing.
Excerpt 47: Error detected in verb conjugation.
Source: Pupil.
Excerpt 48: Correction of the error in verb conjugation.
Source: Pupil.
Excerpt 49: Sample of the final exercise.
Source: Pupil.
Regarding spelling, the results were closer to the ones found in grammar. Most
of the students could re – edit their works, taking into consideration the feedback
provided. Nevertheless, the retention of the corrections is evidenced in some
components of language. In this project, indirect feedback influenced the correction of
the combination “th”. Excerpts 50, 51 and 52 illustrate the error, the feedback and the
retention of the information by the learner, especially, when using the word “with”.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 72
Excerpt 50: Sample of a wrong spelling in a short story.
Source: Student.
Excerpt 51: Piece of the second version of a narrative text.
Source: Student.
Excerpt 52: Piece of an argumentative text.
Source: Student.
In Excerpt 50, the student committed several errors involving the combination
“th” and the word “with”, specifically, a change of order in the letters. In Excerpt 51, he
/ she attended the feedback provided. Finally, in Excerpt 52, the pupil seemed to retain
the correct form of the word.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 73
Chapter VI
Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Further Research
This research study aimed to find the role of indirect feedback in the process of
L2 writing development in a group of tenth grade students, as well as it effects in their
writing accuracy proficiency. And additionally, this project intended to make
contributions to the debate around the effectiveness of feedback in L2 writing. This
chapter presents an overview of the general results, the answers to the questions stated
previously, some unexpected issues, the obstacles that appeared in the application of
this study, the implications that raised when completing this project, some inquiries that
allow the development of other research studies and, a personal reflection about my role
as teacher – researcher.
Conclusions
Along the pedagogical intervention which consisted on seven tasks – based
lessons, the apprentices could enhance their writing proficiency through the
development of several types of compositions and the provision of feedback. In addition
to the linguistic effects, the majority of the pupils could put in practice their creativeness
and shape their ideas through drafting the workshops. And also, they used the second
language to discuss about current problematic situations in Colombia, such as peace
processes, culture and social issues in our country.
This research revolved around two main questions which involved the
usefulness and contributions by indirect feedback in L2 writing:
In regards to the first research question, how may Indirect Feedback contribute
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 74
to the development of L2 writing accuracy in a tenth grader, I could say that this type of
recasts may help a beginner learner to make three processes. First of all, through
feedback, the apprentice did not detect only the errors he / she commits, but also
realizes of the what and the why of the error, and how to correct it. Secondly, feedback
may help in the immediate correction of errors; when the student detects the error and
understands its way of correction, he / she tries to find the correct form, applying it in re
– drafting a composition, and finally, avoiding the error. And thirdly, through feedback,
the apprentice could maintain a behavior of no repetition of errors; when detecting,
correcting and avoiding errors, the apprentice could make a change in his / her mind,
replacing the error by the correction.
Despite of the fact that the students have the possibility to forget errors and
remember corrections, it is also a difficult process, especially for students who are
immersed in a context like the chosen for this study. In Colombia, lots of students have
to face seven or eight subjects at the school, and, in each one of them, teachers of other
disciplines may want their students to remember the correct form of their knowledge,
and this could be a factor that explains why most of the pupils did not retain the
feedback provided by me. Possibly, they could not achieve it because they had other
and more important information to save in their minds.
Concerning the second question, which features of L2 grammar and spelling
were enhanced by indirect feedback in a tenth grader? I must affirm that I got surprised
when analyzing the data collected. In terms of grammar, feedback was helped in the
correction of errors in every category (present tenses, pronouns, confusing verbs,
connectors), however, there was a considerable impact on correcting past forms,
especially, for regular verbs. Nevertheless, the curious issue in this result is that almost
all the participants did it, based on the process of changing the tense, rather than
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 75
transforming the verb into its past form. This could be achieved due to the arduousness
of this process, in comparison with other procedures such as retaining past forms of
irregular verbs, several types of pronouns or an important number of adjectives,
adverbs, prepositions and useful expressions, processes that demand more attention and
effort.
On the other hand, indirect feedback caused a reduction of errors and retention
of corrections in every category concerned with spelling. Notwithstanding, these effects
presented a stronger evidence when using the combination of the letters “th”. This could
be caused by a retention of patters. It means, most of the learners could see this
combination in some words and they remembered that those specific elements of
language contained the “th” in an exact position.
In comparison with previous studies, these conclusions coincide with Ferris and
Roberts (2001), Bitchener et al (2005) and Jamalinesari et al (2015) because this type of
feedback could result in positive effects when this method is applied in specific
elements of language (in this case, past forms and the combination “th”). Furthermore,
this role seems to be effective when it involves that the students re–edit and create new
compositions. Additionally, these final statements represent a contradiction for
researchers such as Beuningen (2011), Chandler (2003), Villalba and Martinez (2014)
and others, who have expressed their preference for direct feedback when assessing
written assignments. It means, this project demonstrated that indirect feedback may play
the same function than the direct one. As additional information, the results of this study
suggested that providing information about errors and ways of correction leads to
learning, as in the classroom as autonomously, causing a strong contradiction to
Truscott (2007) and his harmful role of feedback.
The findings of this study responded the research questions and achieved the
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 76
research objectives, which are 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
and to identify the elements of L2 grammar and spelling which present positive changes
through the application of Indirect Feedback.
Implications
The results and conclusions presented previously provide an important
implication, in regards to the current teaching role. It is necessary that teachers
implement feedback when assessing students’ assignments. One person told me: “take
into consideration that one teacher has four or five groups composed by 35 students.
Your proposal is impossible to achieve”. I consider that it is uncertain to define how
difficult it is, because there is no interest by teachers on transmitting knowledge to their
apprentices. Based on that, this project calls for a need that teachers make the greatest
effort as they are able to, by the way that their pupils improve their proficiency, at least,
in writing, known as the easiest skill to develop and the most applied by English
language teachers, bearing in mind the educational contexts in our schools.
Limitations
Although this study provided positive results, I must confess that some obstacles
did not allow me to execute this project at liberty. The first limitation was concerned
with the time of implementation. On the first hand, I planned to be inmersed in the
classroom for six months, however, I had to develop the pedagogical intervention in
four months, due to academic events and holidays. And on the other hand, the students
studied English two times per week, nevertheless, I had the possibility to collect the
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 77
data and participate in the classroom only one day per week because the other students’
English class caused a conflict with my academic schedule in the University.
And the second limitation was related to the learners’ participation. At the
beginning of the intervention, most of the students were not willing to collaborate with
me and the classroom, and they did not seem to involve much work in the first two
compositions and, for some students, in the first four activities. Fortunately, as time
passed and I was inmersed in the classroom environment, the apprentices got confident
with me and, at the end of the intervention, they presented extensive texts to me,
achieving the objective of each lesson.
Further Research
After having completed this project, there is something which needs to be
investigated. On the first hand, there is a need to investigate this topic, but considering
to extend the time and schedule of the intervention. What whould happen if this project
were carried out in six months, one or two years? And on the other hand, it could be
interesting if future researchers identify and analyze the effects of indirect feedback in a
less number of participants, considering the types and length of the compositions and
the pieces of language which could be performed and improved.
Personal Reflections Towards Research
As future teacher – researcher, I must say that, first of all, this process was
wonderful for me because this helped me to understand that learners have the desire to
learn a second language, the point is that teachers need to take advantage of those
interests to provide an education of quality. Secondly, this research was useful to be
innovative in the EFL classroom, mixing typical activities such as writing a text, with
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 78
the provision of feedback, aiming that my future learners improve their proficiency in
writing and, possibly, in speaking. And finally, through this study, I could understand
that my pupils went beyond writing a composition, until reaching imagination and
critical thinking.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 79
References
Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect
corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied
Linguistics(156), 279-296. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/ record/1/323875
Beuningen, C. (2011). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction
in second language writing. Large-scale study. In C. Beuningen, The
effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback in second language writing
(pp. 55-90). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from
http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/90100
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 191-205. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1060374305000366
British Council. (2008). Teaching English. Retrieved from
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/accuracy
Cánovas, J., Roca, J., & Coyle, Y. (2015). The use of models as a written feedback
technique with Young EFL learners. System(53), 63-77. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X15000548
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement
in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of second language
writing, 12(3), 267-296. Retrieved from http://englishunisma.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/Journal-of-Second-Language-Writing-24.pdf
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 80
Correa, R., Martinez, M., De la Barra, M., Rojas, J., & Cisternas, M. (2013). The impact
of Explicit Feedback on EFL High School Students Engaged in Writing Tasks.
PROFILE, 15(2), 149 – 163. Retrieved from
http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/40174
Donato, R. (2003). Action Research. Eric Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Retrieved from http://edfutures.net/images/7/7a/Action_Research-RICHARD-
DONATO.pdf
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and
unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language
context. System, 353 – 371. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science /article/pii/S0346251X08000390
Ellis, R. (2009). The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching. The Asian EFL Journal, 6-
23. Retrieved from http://asian-efl-journal.com/4101/quarterly-
journal/2009/12/the-methodology-of-task-based-teaching-2/
Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on
EFL students’ writing. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences(98), 445 –
452. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814025294
Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback
on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high – proficient L2 learners.
World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49 – 57. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/60016f19481db0c6c50db892608dbeca/1?p
q-origsite=gscholar
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 81
Fazilatfar, A., Fallah, N., Hamavandy, M., & Rostamian, M. (2014). The effect of
unfocused written corrective feedback on syntactic and lexical complexity of L2
writing. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences(98), 482 – 488. Retrieved
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814025348
Ferrance, E. (2000). Action Research. Rhode Island: Brown University. Retrieved from
https://www.brown.edu/academics/education-
alliance/sites/brown.edu.academics.education-
alliance/files/publications/act_research.pdf
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 classes. How explicit does it need
to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161 – 184. Retrieved from
http://englishunisma.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Journal-of-Second-
Language-Writing-30.pdf
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language
Students (First edition ed.). England: Routledge.
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written
corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing.
System(53), 24 – 34. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X15000974
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher-research: From inquiry to understanding. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Griffe, D. (2012). An Introduction to Second Language Research Methods: Design and
Data. (First Edition ed.). TESL – EJ Publications.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 82
Hopkins, D. (2008). Data Gathering. In D. Hopkins, A teacher's guide to classroom
research (Fourth Edition ed., pp. 102-128). London: Open University Press.
Jacob, E. (2004). Classification and Categorization: A Difference that Makes a
Difference. Library Trends, 52(3), 515 - 540. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/774e/ab27b22aa92dfaa9aeeeafbe845058e85f58.
Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher
– written direct vs indirect feedback on students’ writing. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 116 – 123. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815034898
Johnson, L., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational Research. Quantitative, Qualitative
and Mixed Approaches. Pearson Education Inc.
Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.). The
Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 24-40). Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.co/books?hl=es&lr=&id=gdRfMRoUDZkC&oi=fnd&
pg=PT67&dq=Loewen,+S.+(2012).+The+role+of+feedback.&ots=n_qmzEzgo_
&sig=Ktga6ua5WJXl0UJUZr5oa1rgfj8#v=onepage&q&f=false
Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques
on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250 – 1257. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/9f25ee036253b9e4bbbc578583f3a0fa/1?pq
-origsite=gscholar
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 83
Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism.
Developmental Review, 2(4), 371-384. Retrieved from
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/34722729/Davide_Moshman
_-
_Three_Types_of_Constructivism_and_Knowledge.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AK
IAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1474857512&Signature=iJqs8QCWx31z
QttULQpuRBrLIMk%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B
Pennsylvania State University. (2016). Analysis of Discrete Data. Retrieved from
https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat504/node/4
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language
aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly. (41) . pp. 255 –
283. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from
http://www.hpu.edu/Libraries_HPU/Files/TESOL/TQD/VOL_41_2.pdf#page=2
2
Sheen, Y., D., W., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused
written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL
learners. System, 37(4), 556– 569. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X09000992
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255 – 272.
doi:doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 84
Villalba, A., & Martinez, F. (2014). Effects of Implicit and Explicit Teacher Written
Corrective Feedback on Adult Learners’ Written Grammatical Accuracy. Folios
de humanidades y pedagogía(2), 57 – 66. Retrieved from
http://revistas.pedagogica.edu.co/index.php/FHP/article/view/2556/2369
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 85
Annexes
Annex 1: Consent Form
Universidad Distrital “Francisco José de Caldas” Facultad de Ciencias y Educación
Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en Inglés Pedagogical Experience and Research in Secondary School II
Bogotá, Agosto de 2016.
Respetado (a) padre / madre de familia o acudiente.
Reciba un cordial saludo.
Mi nombre es Jaiver Antonio Santiago Sabogal, soy estudiante de noveno semestre de Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en Inglés de la Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas. Actualmente, me encuentro desarrollando mi proyecto de grado con un grupo de estudiantes de grado décimo, dentro del cual se encuentra su hijo (a). Como él (ella) es menor de edad, me remito a usted para solicitarle autorización para recopilar material fílmico, auditivo y escrito, por parte de su hijo (a).
Este material será analizado y presentado ante el profesorado de la carrera y universidad anteriormente mencionadas. Cabe aclarar que este material no será publicado en ninguna red social ni en canales de videos por internet; el material recopilado tiene fines estrictamente académicos.
__________________________ __________________________
Nombre del (la) estudiante Firma padre, madre de familia
o acudiente
Agradezco su atención y colaboración prestadas al desarrollo de este proyecto.
Cordialmente,
JAIVER ANTONIO SANTIAGO
Estudiante noveno semestre
Lic. en Inglés, Universidad Distrital
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 86
Annex 2: Lesson Plan Samples
LESSON PLAN No. 1
School: Colegio Enrique Olaya Herrera Grade: 10°
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2016 Cooperating teacher: Patricia Carrero
Student teacher: Jaiver Antonio Santiago
PREPARATION
TOPIC: Self - presentations
GOAL: Students will be able to find personal
information about their partners through developing conversations.
COMMUNICATIVE FOCUS:
Oral comprehension and use vocabulary related to personal information.
OBJECTIVES:
To practice adjectives and vocabulary in informal conversations.
To identify the main details about partners' lives.
To correct the mistakes made in oral conversations.
To develop oral people's descriptions.
LANGUAGE FOCUS:
Verb “To Be” (Am, is, are).
Verbs related to personal presentations (live, study, work, etc.).
Verbs related to hobbies (play, eat, run. read, sing, etc.)
TIME: 70 minutes
CLASSROOM ROUTINES: Time: 10 minutes
Greeting the students.
Calling the attendance.
Organizing the classroom.
Lesson Plan Sequence
Stage Time Teacher’s role Student’s role
Pre – Task
How to introduce myself.
20 minutes
The teacher will explain the different components of a presentation. Also, he will share the different expressions and verbs to be used when making self – introductions.
The students are going to listen to the explanations of the teacher. They will ask questions if it is necessary.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 87
Task
Thinking about my introduction.
20 minutes
The teacher will check the progress of the learners in their compositions. Additionally, he will solve the doubts and answer the questions asked by the pupils.
The students will write a composition in which they write their self – presentations. In them, the learners will share their names, ages, birth dates, living places, birth places and hobbies. Also, they will ask questions if necessary.
Post – Task
Making my self – introduction.
20 minutes
The teacher will ask five students to socialize their compositions with their partners. Moreover, he will collect the students’ compositions for making corrections.
After writing the composition, some of the students will socialize their productions; they will talk about what they are, their hobbies, their ages, etc.
LESSON PLAN No. 2
School: Colegio Enrique Olaya Herrera Grade: 10°
Date: Thursday, September 8st, 2016 Cooperating teacher: Patricia Carrero
Student teacher: Jaiver Antonio Santiago
PREPARATION
TOPIC: Narrative text.
GOAL: Students will be able to create real or
unreal stories, considering a specific structure and specific discourse markers.
COMMUNICATIVE FOCUS:
Writing real or unreal stories.
OBJECTIVES:
To activate mental skills to create stories.
To take into deliberation the structure stablished to write narrative texts in the creation or stories.
LANGUAGE FOCUS:
Discourse markers used in narrative texts (Once upon a time, Then, At the end).
TIME: 70 minutes
CLASSROOM ROUTINES: Time: 10 minutes
Greeting the students.
Calling the attendance.
Organizing the classroom.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 88
Lesson Plan Sequence
Stage Time Teacher’s role Students’ role
Pre – Task
What is narrative text?
15 minutes
The teacher will explain the definition, functions and structure of a narrative text. Also, he will explain different discourse markers used to start a story, to connect sentences and to finish a story.
The students will pay attention to the explanation of the teacher and will ask questions if necessary.
Task
Imagination and writing.
30 minutes
The teacher will ask the students to write a story, taking into account real or unreal elements of it (Time, place, characters), and also, the structure and discourse markers addressed in class.
The students will create an original story, with real or unreal time, places and characters. Also, applying the content learned in class.
Post – Task
Socialize
15 minutes
The teacher will choose five students and then, he will ask them to talk about what they wrote; the characters, the places and the time of the story.
After having finished the activity, the students selected by the teacher will talk about the story they wrote.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 89
Annex 3: Worksheets.
Worksheet 1: Creating a Narrative text
Universidad Distrital “Francisco José de Caldas”
Facultad de Ciencias y Educación Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en inglés
Pedagogical Experience and Research in Secondary School II
WHAT HAVE I DONE?
1. Let’s learn: Read the information presented below about the forms and functions of the Present Perfect
Tense.
PRESENT PERFECT TENSE
FUNCTION: To express actions which happened in an unspecified moment in the time. When using this tense, we cannot
use a specific time expression (tomorrow, yesterday, last day, etc.) but we use other time expressions such as already,
yet, still, before, until…, etc.
FORM
Person+ auxiliary Affirmative Negative Yes/no? Wh?
I, You, We, They +
have
Juan and Camila
have brought their
umbrella for a month
Juan and Camila
haven’t brought
their umbrella for a
month
Have Juan and
Camila brought their
umbrella for a
month? Yes, they
have/ No, they
haven’t
*How long have
Juan and Camila
brought their
umbrella?
-Juan and Camila
have brought their
umbrella for a month
He, She, It + has Laura has cooked
the lunch since
Friday.
Laura hasn’t cooked
the lunch since
Friday.
Has Laura cooked
the lunch since
Friday?
Yes, she has/No, she
hasn’t
*What has Laura
cooked since Friday?
-Laura has cooked
the lunch since
Friday.
Affirmative Negative Yes/no? Wh?
Adverbs Already, ever yet , Never yet , Ever Ever
2. Let’s practice: Read the text. After that, taking into account that you are addressing the Present Perfect
Tense, choose A, B or C.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 90
MABLE JONES
Mable Jones lives in Florida in the United States. Her grandchildren live in London, England. They (1)_____ in
London for 3 years. Mable (2)_____ her grandchildren in over a year.
She (3)_____ to her grandchildren on the phone and through e-mails many times. She (4)_____ pictures of her
grandchildren. They (5)_____ so much since the last time they visited America.
Mable knits scarves and blankets to send to her grandchildren in London. So far, she (6)_____ two large blankets for
her granddaughters. She (7)_____ a scarf for each grandchild.
1. A) Have talked B) Have not walked C) Have visited
2. A) Has not seen B) Has not eaten C) Have not written
3. A) Have talked B) Has talked C) Had talked
4. A) Has also wrote B) Has also seen C) Has too seen
5. A) Has grew B) Have rose up C) Have grown
6. A) Has knitted B) Have knitted C) Has knitted
7. A) Has too knitted B) Have also knitted C) Has also knitten
Advice: Look carefully at each option. Maybe, you could make a mistake because of a very little detail.
3. Let’s produce: think about one of the following images. Then, write a narrative text (10 lines min.) in
which you explain any experience about the image you chose. You can use more than one image.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 91
If you don’t know how to write a narrative text, here are some guidelines.
HOW TO WRITE A NARRATIVE TEXT
Beginning In this section, you describe the characters, the time and the place where the story
happens.
Plot In this section, explain the different scenes of the story (What happened in the story).
Ending In this section, you address how the story finished. It could finish with a happy ending or
a sad ending.
Worksheet 2: Writing a reflective text,
Universidad Distrital “Francisco José de Caldas”
Facultad de Ciencias y Educación Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en Inglés
Pedagogical Experience and Research in Secondary School II
I HAVEN’T DONE IT YET
Let’s learn: Read the information about the different adverbs of time which could be involved in Present Perfect
Tense.
Adverb Function Form
Just This adverb is used only in the Present
Perfect Tense to express that the action was
done a short time ago.
I have just seen Mary walking with her
mother.
Already This adverb is used in the Present Perfect
Tense and other tenses to express that the
action was done before the expected.
The train has already gone. It is not here in
this moment.
Yet This expression is used in the Present
Perfect Tense to express that the action has
not finished, specially, when we expected it
to be finished before.
Have you worked on this activity yet?
I have not drunk that beverage yet.
Still I have been waiting here for thirty minutes
and the bus still hasn’t come.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 92
Let’s practice: You will see a chart with different elements of language. You are going to create at least five (5)
sentences, using the elements from the chart, the Present Perfect Tense and the adverbs Yet, Already, Still and
Just.
Subjects Verbs
I Patrick and Margoth
You A group of fat people
She Two old men
They My math teacher
A church My brother and me
One thousand Dogs A statue
Read Dance See
Run Drive Witness
Write Kill Become
Look at Shot Create
Eat Throw Jump
Work Study Attack
Let’s produce: For this activity, you need to be very reflective about yourself. Now, Using Present Perfect and the
adverbs presented previously, write a text in which you explain:
Five things that you done.
Five things that you haven’t developed.
Five things that you started doing but you have not finished.
Let’s learn more: Do you know to connect your sentences? In the following chart, you will see several discourse
markers used to connect sentences. Try to understand them and use them in your activity.
Discourse Markers to Connect Sentences
To start To add statements To conclude a text
First of all,
Firstly, (Secondly, Firstly…)
On the first hand, (On the other
hand,)
Also,
Additionally,
Furthermore,
Moreover,
What is more…
Finally,
In conclusion,
In summary,
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 93
Worksheet 3: Drafting an argumentative text.
Universidad Distrital “Francisco José de Caldas”
Facultad de Ciencias y Educación Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en inglés
Pedagogical Experience and Research in Secondary School II
WHAT COULD YOU RECOMEND?
1. Let’s learn: Read the information about the forms and functions of the different modal verbs. Ask
questions if necessary.
MODAL VERBS
Modal Verb Function Form
Must It expresses moral or personal
obligation.
+ I must go bed early.
- You mustn’t drink too much
beer.
? Must he eat much rice?
Have to / Has to It expresses formal obligation. It
means, a duty imposed by other
people.
+ We have to pay the taxes.
- She does not have to
request the driving license.
? Do you have to give military
service?
Can It expresses possibilities or abilities. + They can dance salsa.
- The bird can’t dig.
? Can Maria run very fast?
May It is used to express permission and
ask formal requests.
+ You may leave the
classroom.
- She may not use the
cellphone.
? May I help you?
Could It is used to express possibilities in
the future and abilities in the past.
Also, Could is used to express to ask
for a permission.
+ I could eat candies.
- Jose could not play the
piano.
? Could you pass me the
salad, please?
Would It is used to express preferences
about something.
+ We would like to eat hot
dogs.
- She wouldn’t travel to Iraq.
? Would I wear those pants?
Should It expresses advices or suggestions. + I should do more exercise.
- They should not drink beer
while driving.
? Should I buy that shirt?
2. Let’s practice: fill in the gaps with the most appropriate modal verb, according to the requirement in
brackets.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 94
1. I __________ write academic texts (ability)
2. Felipe __________ collect the money to pay the bills (Formal obligation).
3. Marcos and Gina __________ waste their time playing videogames (Advice / Negative)
4. Alex, Monica and I __________ go bed too late because we have to wake up tomorrow early (Personal
obligation / Negative).
5. __________ I attend the meeting you are promoting next Sunday? (Formal requests).
6. __________ you dance tango with Daniela? (Preferences).
7. Jessica __________ appreciate your gift so much. (Possibility in the future).
8. This discussion __________ result in a huge trouble. (Possibility).
9. All young men __________ take the army ID (Formal obligation).
10. Fishes __________ go out of water because they won’t be able to breath (Possibility/ Negative).
Remember: If you have not gotten the information to answer this activity, you can read the section “Let’s
learn”.
3. Let’s produce: Before starting the activity, look at the image and guess the situation you are going to take
into account for developing the workshop.
Now, complete the following activities:
a. Write a comparative chart, describing the positions stated by the Colombian government and the
opposite political parties.
THEORY AND PRACTICE ON FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING 95
Colombian Government Opposite Political Parties
b. After that, write a text (10 lines min.) in which you use modal verbs to answer the following question.
How should everybody do to generate a peace environment between the government and the opposite
parties towards the peace dialogs FARC - Government?
Advice: Please, be argumentative. Don’t write vague sentences.
43%
14%
25%
18%
Pregunta 1: Considera que las actividades y clases desarrolladas
por el practicante fueron...
Interesantes
Aburridas
Fructíferas
Graciosas
39%
21%
11%
29%
¿Por qué?
Ambiente de laclase
Temáticas de laclase
Actitud delpracticante
Feedback
21%
25%54%
Pregunta 2: ¿Usted sintió que la retroalimentación que el
practicante hizo en sus escritos fue comprensible?
Si
No
Más o menos
21%
25%54%
¿Por qué?
Lenguajesimple
Comentatiosconfusos
Sobrecarga deinformaciòn
86%
14%
Pregunta 3: ¿Usted aprendió o mejoró su escritura en inglés a través de la intervención hecha
por el practicante?
Si
No
28%
11%21%
11%
18%
11%
Si la respuesta es SI, mencione que cosas aprendó durante las clases.
Pasado de losverbos
Voabulario
Cómo escribirtextos
Ortografía
Verbos modales