No abstract

This study attempts to add new empirical evidence on the language learning (operationalized and measured in terms of several dimensions of accuracy) that may derive from accessing and processing written corrective feedback (WCF) on one's own writing. The research questions examined potential interactions between type of WCF (direct vs. indirect), type of errors (grammar vs. nongrammar), and the perspective of feedback (accuracy vs. acquisition) in a single research design. To this end, 46 English majors at a Spanish university participated in a pretest–posttest design, with 2 intervention groups (those receiving direct or indirect WCF and asked to process it via written languaging) and a control group (who wrote and rewrote their texts without the help of WCF but also engaged in languaging). The analyses conducted show (a) limited appropriation of the WCF received, (b) positive short‐term and longer term benefits resulting from the combined effect of WCF and written languaging, and (c) differential effects of type of WCF on error types. These findings are discussed from the perspective of current theory and research on the manner in which WCF may contribute to language learning in terms of the dual distinction between feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition.

No abstract

How and why writing in an additional language (L2) can represent a site for language learning has been the focus of an important body of theoretical and empirical research. These studies have investigated the language‐learning potential that may result from the act of writing itself (in individual and collaborative conditions), as well as from the processing of written corrective feedback on one's own writing. They have also addressed these potential learning outcomes mainly in terms of (1) L2 writers' engagement in language learning processes, and (2) the expansion and consolidation of L2 knowledge. Finally, these studies have allowed for a number of implications to be extracted that can inform pedagogical decision making in TESOL settings.

No abstract

Most research on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) for accuracy improvement has focused on individual writing. There is scarce research about L2 accuracy through collaborative writing and feedback tasks, or about the types of linguistic categories on which learners focus while revising feedback collaboratively. In this chapter, the authors compare the effects of unfocused WCF on EFL learners' overall and specific linguistic accuracy in individual and collaborative writing conditions. The participants were low-intermediate EFL students (n=54 individuals; n=32 dyads). In each writing condition there was a feedback group and a control group (no feedback). All groups wrote a text, processed feedback (feedback groups) or self-identified errors (control groups) and rewrote their texts. Non-parametric statistics were conducted. Individual writing and feedback resulted in better accuracy than collaborative writing and feedback. The writing condition influenced learners' attempt to correct grammatical corrections depending on the availability of feedback.

This study compared the effects of computer-mediated (CM) versus pen-and-paper (P&P) writing on written accuracy and feedback processing in tasks written and rewritten collaboratively following a pedagogical treatment in two intact authentic classrooms. The study involved 32 secondary education low-proficiency English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners writing two descriptive texts collaboratively and receiving in-class training in the identification and correction of grammatical, lexical, and mechanical errors. Participants were provided with unfocused direct error correction (EC). Error logs were used to facilitate noticing of teacher corrections (i.e., feedback processing). Dyads were required to rewrite their texts for evidence of feedback uptake. Results indicate that writing collaboratively on the computer with the availability of the Internet contributes to increased grammatical and lexical accuracy. No differences were found between writing environments regarding feedback processing or accuracy of rewritten texts.

IJES UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA http://revistas.um.es/ijes Second Language Testing: Interfaces between Pedagogy and Assessment. An Introduction It should go without saying that language assessment 1 and language pedagogy are clearly connected-i.e., that there are clear interfaces between the two. In fact, Davies (1991) claims that language testing, both the British as well as the North American tradition, "grew out of language pedagogy needs": Language testing as practiced today, grew out of the special demands on language assessment of large-scale, on-demand intensive adult language courses in World War 2, which had a similar influence on parallel developments in language teaching materials and methodology (Davies, 1991: 136). Clearly both disciplines are interrelated and affect each other. New theories of teaching and learning may lead to changes in testing practices (Spolsky, 1995) while language tests, especially high-stakes tests, which have a direct impact on students' immediate futures, may affect teaching and learning (Cheng, 1997; Clapham, 2000; Wall, 1996). One fundamental interface of these two fields is the issue of methodological selection. If a second language is taught, say, following the methodological guidelines of the communicative approach (cf.