The language learning potential of writing through EFL students’ processing of feedback

  1. Florentina Nicolás Conesa 1
  2. Julio Roca de Larios 1
  3. María Ángeles Monteverde 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Año de publicación: 2017

Título del ejemplar: Nuevas tendencias en didáctica de la lengua y la literatura: desafíos y perspectivas

Número: 2

Páginas: 187-200

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.30827/DIGIBUG.54146 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

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

Resumen

Este estudio investiga los efectos del procesamiento de dos tipos de feedback (directo e indirecto) sobre la corrección de textos reescritos en estudiantes de bajo nivel de L2 durante una sesión de verbalización de errores de forma escrita. Los datos fueron recogidos durante dos semanas y analizados estadísticamente. Los resultados principales muestran que ninguno de los dos grupos de feedback reflexionó ni entendió todos los errores que les fueron corregidos, lo que a su vez determinó la corrección lingüistica de los textos reescritos. Estos resultados abren una nueva ventana para la investigación de la efectividad de los diferentes tipos de correcciones y el potencial de aprendizaje de lengua a través de la escritura. Las implicaciones empíricas y pedagógicas del estudio son discutidas.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bitchener, J. (2012). “A reflection ‘on the language learning potential’ of written CF”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 4: 348-363.
  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). “The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students”, in Language Teaching Research, 12, 3: 409-431.
  • Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Chandler, J. (2003). “The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 12: 267-296.
  • Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Routledge.
  • Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). “Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks”, in Language Awareness, 10, 2:143-160.
  • Guénette, D. (2007). “Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1:40-53.
  • Hanaoka, O. (2006). “Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL Learners”, in 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”, in Language Teaching Research, 11, 4: 459-479.
  • Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). “Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 4: 332-347.
  • Kim, J.H. (2013). “Learner understanding of written corrective feedback and its relationship with immediate uptake and retention in EFL classrooms”, in English Teaching, 68, 3: 109-130.
  • Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). “Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group interaction on text quality”, in S. Ransdell and M. Barbier (eds.), New Directions for Research in L2 Writing.Dordrecht: Kluwer, 168-188.
  • Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). “Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 17,1:48-60.
  • Leow, R. (1997). “Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior”, in Language Learning, 47, 3: 467-505.
  • Leeser, M.J. (2004). “Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue”, in Language Teaching Research, 8, 1: 55-81.
  • Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). “How do learners perceive interactional feed back?”, in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 4: 471-497.
  • Manchón, R.M. (2011). “Writing to learn the language. Issues in theory and research”, in R.M.
  • Manchón (ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61-82.
  • Martínez Esteban, N., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). “The Use of Models as a Form of Written Feedback to Secondary School Pupils of English”, in International Journal of English Studies, 10, 2: 143-170.
  • Muñoz, B., Magliano, J. P., Sheridan, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2006). “Typing versus thinking aloud when reading: Implications for computer-based assessment and training tools”, in Behavior Research Methods, 38, 2: 211-217.
  • 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.
  • 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. (1990). “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning”, in Applied Linguistics, 11, 2: 129-158
  • Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). “Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese”, in R.R. Day (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237-326.
  • Sheen, Y. (2007). “The effects of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles”, in TESOL Quarterly, 41, 2: 255-283.
  • Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). “The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 3: 286-306.
  • Suzuki, W. (2012). “Written Languaging, Direct Correction, and Second Language Writing Revision”, in Language Learning, 62, 4: 1110-1133.
  • Swain, M. (1995) “Three functions of output in second language learning”, in G. Cook, and B. Seidelhofer(eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-144.
  • Swain, M. (1998). “Focus on form through conscious reflection”, in C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Presss, 64-81.
  • Swain, M. (2006). “Languaging agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency”, in H. Byrnes (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum, 95-108
  • Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). “Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning”, in Applied Linguistics, 16: 371-391
  • Truscott, J. (1996). “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”, in Language Learning, 46, 1: 327-369
  • Truscott, J. (2007). “The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately”, in Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 255-272.
  • Williams, J. (2012). “The potential role(s) of writing in second language development”, in Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 ,4: 321-331.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet