The Use of Models as a Form of Written Feedback to Secondary School Pupils of English

  1. Martínez Esteban, Noelia
  2. Roca de Larios, Julio
Revista:
IJES: international journal of English studies

ISSN: 1578-7044,  1989-6131

Año de publicación: 2010

Título del ejemplar: Feedback in Second Language Writing

Volumen: 10

Número: 2

Páginas: 143-170

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6018/IJES/2010/2/119241 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: IJES: international journal of English studies

Resumen

El objetivo de este estudio es investigar la relación entre atención, escritura y feedback durante la redacción individual y colaborativa de textos en inglés como lengua extranjera. Los participantes eran alumnos españoles de enseñanza secundaria con nivel de competencia intermedio-bajo que completaron una tarea de redacción en tres etapas: escritura de una narración a partir de unos dibujos (Etapa 1), comparación de los textos escritos con dos modelos escritos por hablantes nativos (etapa 2) y revisión posterior de los textos originales (etapa 3). Los resultados indican que los estudiantes repararon en errores principalmente de tipo léxico durante la escritura de la narración, pero que sólo pudieron encontrar unas pocas soluciones a esos problemas en los modelos proporcionados. Sin embargo, la comparación con los modelos les permitió, especialmente a los que trabajaban en colaboración, percatarse de un amplio número de elementos relacionados con el contenido de los dibujos y los medios lingüísticos utilizados para expresar tales contenidos, así como incorporar un número razonable de estos elementos en las revisiones posteriores. De acuerdo con estos resultados, se sugieren diversas implicaciones para la docencia y la investigación.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347-376.
  • Batstone, R. (1996). Noticing. ELT Journal, 50, 273.
  • Broekkamp, H. & van den Bergh, H. (1996). Attention strategies in revising an L2-text. In, G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 169-181). Amsterdam: AUP.
  • Cohen, A. D. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll, (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Conrad, S. M. & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-179.
  • Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511.
  • de Bot, K. (1996). The Psycholinguistics of the Output Hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555.
  • Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit languag knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.
  • Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quartely 29, 87-105.
  • Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51 (Suppl. 1), 1-46.
  • 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, 36, 353-371.
  • Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
  • Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.
  • Gutiérrez, X. (2008). What Does Metalinguistic Activity in Learners' Interaction During a Collaborative L2 Writing Task Look Like? The Modern Language Journal, 92, 519-537.
  • Hanaoka, O. (2006). Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL Learners. Sophia Linguistics, 54 , 167-192.
  • Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459-479.
  • Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255-276.
  • Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann arbor, MI: The Univerity of Michigan Press.
  • Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255- 286.
  • Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
  • Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168-196.
  • Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. ELT Journal, 42, 89-96.
  • Jourdenais, R. (2001). Cognition, instruction and protocol analysis. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 354-375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114-130.
  • Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group interaction on text quality. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), New Directions for Research in L2 Writing (pp. 169-188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Lapkin, S., Swain, M. & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485-507.
  • Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2009). Reformulation and self-correction: testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. RESLA, 22, 189-215.
  • Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.
  • Leki, I. (1991). The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
  • Leow, R. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467- 505.
  • López Serrano, S. (2010). A review of individual vs. collaborative writing. Unpublished manuscript. Universidad de Murcia.
  • Lowen, S. and Philp, J. (2006). Recast in the adult English L2 classroom: characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
  • Malmqvist, A. (2009). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14, 128-141.
  • Manchón, R. (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching and research. Clevendon: Multiligual Matters.
  • Manchón, R. M. (In press a). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts. Lessons from research. En M. Reichelt & T. Chimasko (Eds.), Foreign Language Writing. Research insights. West Lafayette: Parlour Press.
  • Manchón, R. M. (In press b). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. En R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L. & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Lexical retrieval processes and strategies in second language writing: A synthesis of empirical research. International Journal of English Studies, 2, 149-174.
  • Manchón, R. M. & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in Instructed Language Learning Contexts. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds.), Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 101-121). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second Language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 51-84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384-402.
  • Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
  • Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes.
  • Polio, C. & Williams, J. (2009). Teaching and testing writing. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 486-555). Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Qi, D. S. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303.
  • Reinders, H. (2009). Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar-oriented production activities. Language Teaching Research, 13, 201-222.
  • Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283- 331.
  • Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two type of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 1, 67-100.
  • Santos, M., López Serrano, S. & Manchón, R. (2010). The differential effects of two types of direct griten corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 131-154.
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversational in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Shehadeh, A. (2001). Selfand other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433-457.
  • Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible Output, From Occurrence to Acquisition: An Agenda for Acquisitional Research. Language Learning, 52, 597–647.
  • Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 2, 171-200.
  • Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System 27, 363-374.
  • Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158.
  • Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153- 173.
  • Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143-159.
  • Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awatreness, 17, 95-114.
  • Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: The effect of collaboration. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 157-177). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334.
  • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. C. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. (1998). Focus of form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swain, M. (2000). The output hypotheses and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97- 114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning. The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.
  • Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
  • Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to formulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304.
  • Tocalli-Beller, A. & Swain. M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15, 5-28.
  • Tomlin, R. S. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
  • Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 337-343.
  • Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.
  • Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2009). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness 17, 115-130.
  • Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects of fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing 26, 45-466.
  • Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. In R. Ellis (Ed), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 303-346). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.
  • Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners' use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: a comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3- 17.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet