University of Reading

MA Feedback Sheet Module code LSMDSL Module title Second Language Learning

Principles Student

3112DS1 Maria do Carmo

Programme MAELT; MAAL

Assignment task

Date submitted 21 June 2013

Marked by Parvaneh Tavakoli

Grade 53%

THIS MARK IS PROVISIONAL AND IS SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT IN EITHER DIRECTION BY THE EXAMINERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIVERSITY’S  ASSESSMENT  PROCEDURES Criteria for this task

1 Demonstration of a range of relevant reading and understanding of issues raised in the Module

2 Ability to evaluate reading and relate it to your experiences as an L2 teacher and/or learner or to practical issues in L2 teaching

3 Depth and breadth of discussion of the chosen topic 4 Coherence of assignment, especially overall organisation and division into sections

and paragraphs 5 Presentation, especially correctness of referencing and bibliography, and quality of

writing Comments (Numbers refer to the criteria above) 1. Although a number of sources have been consulted, these are mainly textbooks of a couple of decades ago. There is very little evidence in the essay to suggest that research articles and more up-to-date resources have been used. In certain parts of the essay, a reasonable understanding of some key concepts of language learning has been demonstrated. However, in a number of places in the essay, the limited discussion you have provided makes it difficult to evaluate understanding of these issues. See examples of this kind below in the specific points section. 2. It is good to see that the different readings come in to discuss the key issues. You have shown an ability to integrate the materials from different sources to support your discussions. The main problem is that many of these sources are not listed in the bibliography. You have clearly discussed why research is useful for language teaching, and have further explained what Brazilian students need to have in their language teaching programmes. However, the essay fails to discuss the ways in which theoretical considerations of Input and Output Hypotheses can benefit language teaching and learning in your context.

3. A narrowed-down focus can help develop in-depth analysis and engaging discussions. Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis each need a long essay to discuss their different aspects carefully and thoroughly. 4. The essay is conceptually coherent, but the organisation of the content must be improved by avoiding writing short paragraphs and by a more effective grouping of the content into same sections. Having a more transparent structure will enhance the communication of your message with the readers. In certain parts of the essay, e.g. pages 5 and 6 the loose structure of the text makes it difficult to see the purpose of the essay. 5. Although the quality of the writing in the essay is generally good, it will benefit from a thorough proofreading (see specific points below). Conventions of referencing are not followed carefully and many of the in-text citations do not appear on the reference list. Another main problem in the referencing system of the essay is the recurrent use of secondary citations especially where the primary texts are easily available. The title page and table of contents are both missing. Specific comments Page 1: This is a nice and thought provoking introduction. I wish later on in the essay you had made a better use of the concept and linked it more actively with your discussions of input and output. Par.8  and  elsewhere  in  the  essay:  Who  is  “we”? Par. 8: This is a very confusing point. The underpinning principle of Input Hypothesis is how to promote language acquisition. Are you really narrowing it down? Par.  11,  Figure  1:  What  is  this  figure  doing  here?  I  don’t  know  how  this  is  going  to  support  your discussion. Par. 15: What are you going to discuss in the following paragraphs? Why are you going to do so? What do you want to achieve? Par. 29: examples of a few in-text references that are not available on the list: Krashen, 1994; Krashen, 1998; Young, 1990. The same paragraph is a good example of the need for proofreading: krashen, young. Page 7 is full of short paragraphs that interrupt the flow of communication. This page does not present a coherent discussion of the topic either. Page 8 is another example of text being poorly structured. Par. 32: references for the citations in the quotation marks are missing. Par. 34: the first sentence is ambiguous. What do you mean? Overall Comments: The essay is a mixed bag of strength and weaknesses. You have tried to discuss how teachers may benefit from SLA research findings especially the findings of Input and Output Hypotheses. In doing so, you have read a number of books, provided some interesting discussions and raised concerns about the development of L2 proficiency in L2 learners. However, some of the discussions are poorly structured and do not provide an in-depth evaluation of these two theories of SLA. The way the text has been organised has had a negative effect in conveying the message of the essay. More importantly, the essay does not

eventually show how teachers can learn from these theories or how these theories can be translated into language teaching practices.