Self-Monitoring in L2 Writing by Spanish Secondary School Students

  1. Menárguez Sarabia, Rocío
  2. Nicolás Conesa, Florentina
  3. Roca de Larios, Julio
Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Año de publicación: 2012

Número: 18

Páginas: 7-26

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.30827/DIGIBUG.30917 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Resumen

Aunque los comentarios escritos y las correcciones de los profesores se consideran recursos didácticos importantes para que los estudiantes puedan desarrollar adecuadamente su habilidad escritora, estudios recientes demuestran que la efectividad de dichos comentarios y correcciones depende en gran medida de cómo se relacionen con las preocupaciones de los aprendices. Una técnica especialmente adecuada para determinar estas preocupaciones consiste en animar a los estudiantes a que monitoricen su propia producción escrita por medio de anotaciones. En este estudio se analizaron las anotaciones realizadas por dos grupos de estudiantes con distinto dominio del inglés como lengua extranjera en un instituto de educación secundaria mientras componían un texto expositivo por escrito. Ambos grupos utilizaron la petición de traducción como forma de anotación predominante y centraron sus anotaciones en cuestiones de léxico y de sintaxis. Las diferencias entre los dos grupos se centraron fundamentalmente en el promedio de anotaciones realizadas y en la atención prestada al discurso y a la organización del texto. Estos resultados se interpretan desde una perspectiva empírica y se utilizan como punto de partida para sugerir diversas recomendaciones pedagógicas.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adams, R. (2003). "L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development", in Language Teaching Research, 7, 3: 347-76.
  • Cohen, A.D. & Cavalcanti, M.C. (1990). "Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports", in B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: CUP, 155-177.
  • Conrad, S.M. & Goldstein, L.M. (1999). "ESL learner revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contents, and individuals", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 2: 147-179.
  • Cresswell, A. (2000). "Self-monitoring in student writing: developing learner responsibility", in ELT Journal, 54, 3: 235-244.
  • Cumming, A., Busch, M., & Zhou, A. (2002). "Investigating learners' goals in the context of adult second-language writing", in S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 189-208.
  • Ellis, R. (2001). "Introduction: investigating form-focused instruction", in 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", in System, 36, 3: 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...?)", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 1: 49-62.
  • Goldstein, L. M. (2004). "Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 1: 63-80.
  • Goldstein, L. (2006). "Feedback and revision in second language writing: Helping learnersbecome independent writers", in K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: CUP, 185-205.
  • Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). "Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 2: 141-163.
  • Hyland, F. (1998). "The impact of teacher-written feedback on individual writers", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 3: 255-288.
  • Hyland, F. (2003). "Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback", in System, 31, 217-230.
  • Leki, I. (1990). "Coaching from the margings: Issues in written response", in B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing. Cambridge: CUP, 57-68.
  • Leki, I. (1991). "The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes", in Foreign Language Annals, 24, 3: 203-218.
  • Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). "The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes: Implications for theory", in R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 102-129.
  • Murphy, L. & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). "Searching for words: One strategic use of the mother tongue by advanced Spanish EFL writers", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 2: 61-81.
  • Qi, D. S. & Lapkin, S. (2001). "Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 4: 277-303.
  • Radecki, P. M. & Swales, J. M. (1988). "ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work", in System, 16, 3: 355-365.
  • Robinson, P. (1995). "Review article: Attention, memory and the "noticing" hypothesis", in Language Learning, 45, 2: 283-331.
  • Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). "Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality", in TESOL Quarterly, 20, 1: 83-93.
  • Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). "Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task", in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 1: 67-100.
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). "Attention", in P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-32.
  • Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). "Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner", in Second Language Research, 7, 2: 118-132.
  • Storch, N. & Tapper, J. (1996). "Patterns of NNS student annotations when identifying areas of concern in their writing", in System, 24, 3: 323-336.
  • Storch, N. & Tapper, J. (1997). "Student Annotations: What NNS and NS university students say about their own writing", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 3: 245-264.
  • Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). "Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing", in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 2: 303-334.
  • Swain, M. (1995). "Three functions of output in second language learning", in G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: OUP, 125-144.
  • Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). "Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning", in Applied Linguistics, 16, 3: 71-391.
  • Truscott, J. (1996). "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes", in Language Learning, 46, 2: 327-369.
  • Van Beuningen, C. (2010). "Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions", in International Journal of English Studies, 10, 2: 1-27.
  • Wang, L. (2003). "Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 4: 347-375.
  • Williams, J. (2001). "Learner-generated attention to form", in R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 303-346.
  • Xiang, W. (2004). "Encouraging self-monitoring in writing by Chinese students", in ELT Journal, 58, 3: 238-246.
  • Zamel, V. (1983). "The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies", in TESOL Quarterly, 17, 2: 165-87.
  • Zhang, S. (1995). "Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class", in Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 3: 209-222.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet