Jaiver Antonio Santiago Sabogal

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


Note of Acceptance.

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________

____________________________

Thesis Director: ______________________

Thesis Juror: ______________________


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”.


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.


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 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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


Author,


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.


Author,


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.


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


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


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


(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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Journal



September 29th

Student’s

artifacts

Students

Errors found in the

composition.


Journal



October 13th

Student’s

artifacts

Students

Errors found in the

composition.


Journal Teacher – Researcher Classroom Observation

October 20th

Student’s

artifacts

Students

Errors found in the

composition.



October 27th

Student’s

artifacts

Students

Errors found in the

composition.



November 3rd

Student’s

artifacts

Students

Errors found in the

composition.


Survey

Self – Assessment

Journal



Table 2: Tentative schedule of the application of data collection instruments.

Source: Own.


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 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.


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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Grammar: Wrong Form.


Spelling: Capitalization.


Spelling: Plurals and Singulars


Spelling: Addition and

Omission.

Which features of L2 grammar

and spelling were enhanced by

indirect feedback in a tenth

grader?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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”).


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


Chart 13 shows how many times the students used a combination of letters

incorrectly.

Spelling: Combination of letters


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.


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”.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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”.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.

pdf

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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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,


Facultad de Ciencias y Educación Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en Inglés


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.


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,


Worksheet 3: Drafting an argumentative text.


Facultad de Ciencias y Educación Licenciatura en Educación Básica con Énfasis en inglés


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.


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.


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

Jaiver Antonio Santiago Sabogal

Documents

Transcript of Jaiver Antonio Santiago Sabogal