The correct answers are A and D. This sentence is both simple and complex. Simple because it uses exact terms and language to correctly convey the idea, and complex because it inclu See results 0 The answer is not found? Log in Forgot your password? Join now Forgot your password? You are registered. Access to your account will be opened after verification and publication of the question. Ok Close. Add photo Send.
Question sent to expert. You will receive an answer to the email. These essays were subjected to both a text- linguistic error analysis and a holistic evaluation of their argumentative rigour yielding assessments in five areas: formal correctness, lexical correctness, syntactical correctness, text-linguistic correctness and argumentative rigour.
The findings from both the beginning of the semester and the end of the semester are visualized in area charts, so-called writing competence profiles WCP , which, against the background of dynamic systems theory, set individual writing sub-competencies in relation to each other. The characteristic patterns suggest that WCPs, when available for a larger range of writing competence levels, may be usable as grids for the assessment of writing competence.
Their research focuses on the development of plurilingual skills including translation competence and academic literacy. Contact Sign in Basket en. For Authors Publish with us Submit your Proposal. Copy to clipboard. BibTeX Zotero. For example, Student 2 had only six types of errors which were word choice, articles, unclear sentences, verb tense, verb form, and missing words.
She committed a mistake related to verb tense only in her first version of Assignment 1 and never made it again but the other five types of errors were present in all of her texts which led the researchers to hypothesize that some of those errors were real problem areas for the student although unclear sentences and missing words could be corrected once the student develops more awareness of the audience and is guided to write her ideas more explicitly. The most common errors that the participants made in general in their four texts submitted were word choice, verb form, and missing words.
It was also found that these types of errors continued to occur throughout the different assignments. This information helped the teacher to implement activities that would help the students to express the doubts they had about the three types of errors and practice them such as extracting parts of the texts and sharing them with the class to find possible solutions to the errors, explaining why the word or verb form should be changed.
In some cases, students were recommended to do certain grammar exercises, however, they were suggestions that may or may not have been followed by the learners. Since participation in those activities was not assessed due to the fact that they were not included in the official syllabus and evaluation criteria for the course, we could not attest for their effect.
Another common error was word order. On the other hand, the type of error that students did not find in any occurrence was unclear fragments. However, it is worthwhile to mention that the texts analyzed were peer and self-corrected so the teacher at that point had not yet provided feedback; that is, the teacher could identify other errors that the students overlooked. The following types had a single occurrence: the improper use of capitalization, singular, plural, pronouns, and subject-verb agreement.
This is due to the fact that most of the students in this group had an appropriate level of English from the first semester and were the first generation of the program which means that most of them had taken an entrance level test. Most of the students in this group had taken extra school English classes and some had recently returned to Mexico from the United States where they had studied in high schools. The following paragraphs will refer to specific participants that attracted our attention because of the results in their error logs.
Student 4, who probably had the highest level of proficiency, can be said to have committed only one type of error at a time. That is to say, the six types of error she produced were made only once each but in different moments. For example, in the first draft of Assignment 1 there were errors of word form and subject-verb agreement which were successfully self-corrected in the final version where there was a missing word error.
The same happened in the second assignment where in the first version, the student had a word order error and in the final version had a word choice error and run-on sentence.
We consider that different errors come up in different versions of the assignment because, in each stage, the students extended their compositions which would potentially open the door to additional unsupervised errors. In terms of the frequency of errors tracked in the error log, it was observed that the errors participants had from the first to the fourth assignment varied. Five participants showed a decrease in their mistakes having from one to six fewer errors.
In two cases, they had the same number of errors in the first and final writing; however, in the final version of Assignment 2 and first draft of Assignment 4 they reduced their errors. Only in one case, the participant kept the same number of errors in the first and final draft of Assignment 2 and the final version of Assignment 4 and increased one in the first draft of Assignment 4.
Interestingly, the remaining participant made more errors in the last three writings than in the first one which could have been caused because she went from producing a very controlled and short first text to freer, more extensive texts.
This is another effect observed during the teaching of writing as a process. It seems to encourage students to write more and take more risks since they appreciated the opportunity they had to experiment with language as the assignments required them to express themselves.
Furthermore, when students received the second draft of the assignment, they went through the revision process which comprises identifying, classifying, and correcting the mistakes they made. Another aspect observed was that students worked more comprehensively, engaging with their classmates as writers and readers which provided them with benefits such as more confidence to write and lower levels of anxiety. In addition, the roles of the agents in the classroom were reorganized since the teacher was not seen as the owner of knowledge but as a facilitator, as Topping pointed out:.
Peer assessment involves students directly in learning, and might promote a sense of ownership, personal responsibility and motivation. Peer assessment might also increase variety and interest, activity and interactivity, identification and bonding, self-confidence, and empathy with others-for assessors, assesses, or both.
As a conclusion of this classroom experience, it can be said that self and peer correction as well as the writing as a process approach are worthwhile practices that can be implemented in the writing tasks included in the regular English textbooks. It also helps them to focus on their own errors as opposed to what happens normally in the classroom where, due to time constraints, teachers address the most common errors found in the assignments which might not be completely relevant to the students who do not make such mistakes.
As for peer correction, it was evident that the way students provided feedback to their partners was done in a friendly, respectful manner which brought about opportunities for them to confirm or disconfirm what they believed was right or wrong.
Sometimes the assessment could be wrong because the feedback came from a partner, however, the students were close enough to ask for clarification from the student who provided feedback and with the help of the teacher, find out who was right, leading to learning.
It was also observed that the students developed evaluative and critical skills from their second draft since their errors declined. Spelling, capital letters, pronoun errors, and the rest committed only once proved to be easy to correct. Some of these errors are identified and marked by the computer but it has been seen that when the students do not receive feedback or receive it but in an untimely manner, they continue to make these errors. If peer and self-correction help learners to polish their texts even a little, it will still save time for the teacher when checking their texts and teachers will be able to focus on items that the students have not been able to resolve themselves.
Because this is a small exploratory study, the authors cannot claim that self and peer correction resulted in significant progress, however, it was observed that throughout the semester of implementation, students became quite comfortable with providing and receiving peer correction and their attitude towards writing seemed to improve. The authors consider these practices should be explored further as well as their results. In order to do so, more English teachers working in this program could be instructed in the writing as a process approach as well as the self and peer correction practices so there is a higher possibility of researching their effects in the development of the writing skill as well as in providing learners with continuity and homogeneity at least as much as possible and appropriate in the approach to error treatment and to writing.
This is especially important in our context because the students are English teacher trainees who will have the responsibility of developing better literacy practices in their future students. Bitchener, J.
The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing , 14 3 , Buckingham, L. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 26 , Cassany, D.
Encinas, F. An overview of EFL writing research. Santos Ed. Englander, K. An analysis of the awkward scholarly writing in English by L2 writers. Fahimi, Z. On the impact of self-assessment practice on writing skill.
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences , , Ferris, D. Treatment of error in second language student writing. Hanrahan, S. Higher Education Research and Development , 20 1 , What does reflection involve? ERA Brookfield. Introduction to using frameworks of reflective practice Often, reflective assessments will require you to use a framework or model for your reflection. Frameworks of reflective practice If your assignment requires you to make reference to a framework or 'model' of reflective practice, you will need to choose a framework through which to structure your assignment.
Gibbs Gibbs' Reflective Cycle. Rolfe et al.
0コメント