The effects of negotiated feedback in the writing conference onl2 error correction and l2 uptake = Thảo luận lỗi trong bài viết của người học ngoại ngữ và tác dụng của những cuộc thảo luận này đối với việc chữa lỗi và học ngoại ngữ
In the world of L2 learning and teaching, feedback has always been a much-debated issue, with different researchers putting forward different claims about its effectiveness (Karim & Nassaji, 2019; Kang & Han, 2015; Liu & Brown,2015). The conflicting results give rise to the question th...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Final Year Project |
| Language: | Vietnamese |
| Published: |
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/96340 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Vietnam National University, Hanoi |
| Language: | Vietnamese |
| Summary: | In the world of L2 learning and teaching, feedback has always been a much-debated issue, with different researchers putting forward different claims about its effectiveness (Karim & Nassaji, 2019; Kang & Han, 2015; Liu & Brown,2015). The conflicting results give rise to the question that perhaps it is the way feedback is provided and how students are engaged in the process that ultimately determines the efficacy of feedback. This case study investigated the effects of negotiated feedback in writing conferences on students’ error correction rate and second language uptake. Specifically, the study compared the quantity and quality of negotiated feedback in Teacher-to-Student writing conferences and Peer-to-Peer writing conferences to see how students’ engagement differed in these two types of conferences and whether the effects were more pronounced in the case of Teacher-to-Student conferences. By means of recorded writing conferences, writing drafts, and post-tests of five intermediate/upper-intermediate learners, the results of this study revealed that negotiated feedback had a more prominent effect on students’ error correction rate and L2 uptake in the suggest conference than in the typical Peer-to-Peer one. The disparity could be attributed to several significant factors, including the use of scaffolding in sample analysis, the accuracy of the input provided, the students’ understanding of the marked errors, and the provision of feed forward. The findings of this research can be meaningful to teachers and program developers in increasing students’ engagement with writing feedback, choosing the suitable type of writing conferences, as well as helping students improve their future performance. Furthermore, the study set a foundation for further larger-scaled studies on how different feedback negotiations would affect error correction andL2 uptake. |
|---|