Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANDREA RVSZ
University College London
UCL Institute of Education
20 Bedford Way
London WC1H 0AL
United Kingdom
Email: a.revesz@ioe.ac.uk
This article reports on a classroom-based study that investigated the effectiveness of direct written corrective feedback in relation to learner differences in grammatical sensitivity and knowledge of metalanguage. The study employed a pretestposttestdelayed posttest design with two treatment sessions.
Eighty-nine Greek English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were randomly assigned to 3 groups: direct feedback only, direct feedback plus metalinguistic comments, and comparison. The linguistic target
was article use for specific and generic plural reference. A text summary and a truth value judgment test
were employed to measure any development in learners ability to use articles. The results revealed an
advantage for receiving direct feedback over no feedback, but provided no clear evidence for the benefit
of supplying metalinguistic information. Additionally, participants with greater grammatical sensitivity
and knowledge of metalanguage proved more likely to achieve gains in the direct feedback only group.
Keywords: written corrective feedback; individual differences; article use
264
One aim of the current study is to extend existing research by further exploring the extent to
which metalinguistic information may influence
the effectiveness of WCF. The additional aims
and novel aspects of our research include examining whether WCF can facilitate the acquisition
of a new linguistic targetarticle use for generic
and specific plural referenceand whether the
link between WCF type and SLA may be moderated by grammatical sensitivity and knowledge of
metalanguage.
BACKGROUND
Written Corrective Feedback
Written corrective feedback refers to the
information provided to L2 learners about the illformedness of their written production (Loewen,
2012). The vast majority of SLA researchers (e.g.,
Ferris, 1999, 2002) agree that there are a number
of potential benefits to supplying WCF in L2
classrooms. For example, in line with the widely
accepted view that acquisition requires some
focus on form, WCF can function as such a device
and draw learners attention to L2 constructions
(e.g., Ellis, 2005), thereby helping them to notice
gaps in their current L2 knowledge (Schmidt,
1990). WCF may additionally engage learners in
guided learning and problem solving and, as a
result, promote the type of reflection that is more
likely to foster long-term acquisition (Bitchener
& Knoch, 2008, p. 415).
Contrary to these arguments, a few researchers
have raised concerns regarding the use of WCF on
L2 writing, Truscotts (1996, 2007) counterclaims
being the most influential among them. Truscott
objected to the use of WCF on the ground that the
way it is practiced in the majority of language classrooms disregards well-established understandings
from SLA research, including that (a) L2 development is a gradual and intricate process, which entails more than just the sudden discovery of rules
and simple knowledge transfer from teachers to
students, (b) there is little probability that a single form of feedback will promote the acquisition
of features from various linguistic domains such as
lexis, morphology, and syntax, (c) WCF is likely to
have no value for promoting implicit knowledge
and only has the capacity to assist in developing a
limited degree of explicit knowledge, which may
be helpful for revision purposes but not for genuine L2 improvement, and (d) teachers are not
equipped to provide feedback that is adjusted to
the developmental needs of their learners given
the absence of well-documented developmental
265
matical sensitivity as a potential mediating variable was driven by the assumption that this capacity would be particularly relevant to learners ability to benefit from WCF targeting a grammatical
phenomenon.
Knowledge of metalanguage refers to the
ability to use subject-specific terminology to articulate metalinguistic rules. Tests of metalanguage
typically ask participants to identify examples of
grammatical terms in L1 and/or L2 sentences
(Alderson, Clapham, & Steel, 1997; Berry, 2009;
Elder, 2009) and/or to give stand-alone examples
of grammatical terms (Berry, 2009). Knowledge of
metalanguage, which was operationalized here as
learners knowledge of the appropriate terminology to describe structures and forms in their L2,
was presumed to be especially important to the
capability to learn from metalinguistic comments.
We expected that familiarity with metalanguage
would assist learners in understanding and
making use of the metalinguistic explanations
offered, thus leading to larger instructional gains.
Although the importance of investigating
aptitudetreatment interactions has increasingly
been emphasized (e.g., DeKeyser, 2012; Robinson, 2002, 2005; Vatz et al., 2013) in the L2
literature, empirical research exploring potential
links between learners cognitive abilities and
propensity to benefit from particular instructional treatments remains relatively limited (see
Vatz et al., 2013, for a recent summary). To
date, only the previously mentioned study by
Sheen (2007) looked into the relationship between WCF and learner differences in cognitive
abilities. In particular, she examined whether
inductive language learning ability may moderate
the efficacy of direct written feedback. The results
revealed greater benefits for learners with high
inductive language learning ability under both
feedback conditions investigated, direct feedback
only and direct feedback with metalinguistic
comments. Sheen additionally found that high
language analytic ability posed a greater advantage when the written feedback was accompanied
by metalinguistic information.
To the best of our knowledge, grammatical sensitivity and knowledge of metalanguage have not
yet been studied in the context of WCF research.
Nevertheless, there is some evidence indicating
that learners who differ along these factors may
respond differently to particular instructional
techniques. Among other individual difference
factors, Erlam (2005) examined the moderating
effects of grammatical sensitivity on the effectiveness of three types of instruction: inductive,
structured input, and deductive. She found that,
266
RQ2.
Design
The study followed a pretestposttestdelayed
posttest design, with two treatment sessions
between the pretest and posttest. The participants
O
the (pl.) parrots
.
are
colorful
(the) parrots are colorful. [specific reference: parrots known to both interlocutors OR generic reference: all parrots in
general]
In sum, English employs articles to map two
different meanings (generic and specific reference) onto two different forms (bare and definite
plurals), whereas Greek marks both meanings
onto a single form (definite plural). Thus, the
interpretation of Greek definite plurals as either
specific or generic is dependent on the context.
This type of cross-linguistic difference has been
demonstrated to pose a challenge for Spanish
learners of English, whose L1, in line with most
Romance languages, behaves like Greek with
regard to plural referents (see Ionin & Montrul,
2010; Snape, Garca Mayo, & Grel, 2009). Importantly, Greek EFL learners themselves have
been found to show difficulty in using plural
generics (Stefanou, 2010). Therefore, it appears
worthwhile to investigate the extent to which
written corrective feedback techniques may help
learners master this construction.
Treatment
The two treatment sessions took place during
the participants normally scheduled classes, in
which one of the researchers acted as the teacher.
First, the participants completed two versions
267
of the text summary task. As part of the text
summary task, they were required first to read a
short text in Greek. Half of the text introduced
an animal species using generic reference, and
the other half described a specific pair of animals
of the same species. Next, without consulting
the text, the participants were asked to provide
short descriptions of eight pictures in English,
each of which corresponded to part of the information presented earlier in the text. Four
of the pictures targeted generic reference (e.g.,
Bears sleep in the winter; henceforth, generic text
summary), and the other four were designed to
elicit specific referents (e.g., The bears in my town
came from Northern Europe; henceforth, specific
text summary). Thus, the two treatment sessions,
overall, intended to elicit the use of 16 generic
and 16 specific referents (both treatment sessions included two treatment tasks, with each
treatment task designed to elicit four generic and
four specific uses). Three different versions of
the text summary task were also used as part of
the assessment. The task had no time limit, and
participants could seek assistance with unfamiliar
vocabulary. Except for the L1 reading component, this task format was aligned well with the
activities that the students would normally carry
out during their English classes.
Once all students had finished the task, their
task sheets were collected for marking. In the
two experimental groups, all article errors with
generic and specific plural referents were corrected by one of the researchers using direct
WCF. Other error types, including different
errors in article use, were ignored. For the direct
feedback only group, the feedback took the
form of insertions of the definite article when
the context required specific instead of generic
plural reference, or deletions of the definite
article when the use of bare generics rather
than definite specific plurals would have been
appropriate. In the direct metalinguistic group,
the direct corrections were complemented with
relevant metalinguistic information, which was
handwritten at the top of each task sheet in
English. This information made reference to the
actual content of the text summary task (lions in
the example that follows), and read as:
Use the + plural noun (e.g., The lions . . .)
to describe some particular animals.
=
Use + plural noun (e.g., Lions . . .)
to describe all animals in general.
In the comparison group, article errors with specific and generic referents were ignored and
268
corrections of spelling errors were provided
instead.
In the next session, the students received back
their text summaries with the WCF and were given
five minutes to look over their errors and the respective corrections, with the advice to attend to
the feedback carefully because, as they were told,
they would later have to complete a similar task.
Piloting suggested that 5 minutes allowed sufficient time for learners to examine the feedback.
No further comments were provided by the researcher, and the students were not asked to revise
their writing, as in Bitchener & Knoch (2009), Ellis et al. (2008), and Sheen (2010). This methodological choice was in line with normal feedback
practice in this context, since the students are
usually not asked to revise their work based on
teacher feedback. It was also deemed more appropriate given the availability of the correct construction in the feedback provided, which would
have made revisions resemble passive copying on
the part of the students. As Polio (2012) notes,
it is obvious that a writer can look at direct corrections and copy them onto a new piece of writing (p. 377); what is key to the success of WCF
is drawing learner attention to the target of the
feedback provided. Referring to Sachs and Polio
(2007), she suggests this might be achieved by asking students to take time to look over their corrections before revising. The revision component,
however, does not seem necessary to trigger noticing, as evidenced in some existing studies of WCF
(Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2010) and the findings
obtained here.
Assessment Tasks
Two testing tasks were designed to assess article use with specific and generic plural referents:
a text summary and a truth value judgment test.
Both tasks entailed two types of itemsitems targeting article use for specific reference and items
designed to elicit article use for generic reference. Our rationale for using two different types
of assessment tasks was to assess any effects of the
treatment on the participants productive and receptive knowledge of the targeted constructions.
Three parallel versions of the testing tasks were
developed and counterbalanced across the three
testing sessions in a split-block design. Version
A of the assessment tasks can be found in the
Appendix.
Text Summary Test. This test had exactly the
same format as the treatment task; it aimed at
assessing the participants productive knowledge
have
electronic
books.
269
Procedure
As Figure 1 illustrates, the learners were initially screened using the grammar part of the
Oxford Placement Test (Dave, 2004). On the
second day of the study, the pretest was administered, followed by the first treatment task. A
few days later within the same week, the participants received WCF in response to errors they
made on the first treatment task. After studying
the feedback for 5 minutes, they completed the
second treatment task. The second week of the
study started with the participants looking over
the WCF, which addressed errors in their performance on the second treatment task. They were
again given 5 minutes to process the feedback,
then the immediate posttest followed just like
in previous research by Bitchener and Knoch
(2009). In the third week, the two measures of
learner factors were administered. Finally, in the
fourth week, the delayed posttest was completed,
2 weeks after the second treatment session. The
pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest lasted approximately 40 minutes, and the participants on
average took about 20 minutes to carry out each
treatment task. The words-in-sentences and metalanguage tests were completed within the time
limit of a normally scheduled 45-minute class.
During the period of the study, the teachers of the
participating classes were asked not to provide
any input on article use in their English lessons in
an attempt to control for exposure to the target
construction outside of the experiment.
Data Analyses
Scoring. Both the assessment tasks and the
measures of learner differences were marked
dichotomously. One point was awarded for each
correct answer, and zero points were given for
incorrect responses. For the two assessment tasks,
separate scores were calculated for the generic
and the specific reference items.
270
FIGURE 1
Study Design
271
3.33 (1.18)
2.90 (1.47)
3.10 (1.47)
2.30 (1.68)
1.13 (1.55)
1.13 (1.63)
3.13 (1.43)
1.87 (1.55)
2.93 (1.41)
1.67 (1.49)
.97 (1.07)
.73 (.94)
Note. The total scores were 4 points for each test.
1.17 (1.60)
1.31 (1.51)
1.72 (1.51)
1.27 (1.36)
1.48 (1.64)
.76 (1.02)
3.83 (.59)
3.57 (.94)
3.67 (.92)
3.03 (1.38)
2.90 (1.27)
3.00 (1.23)
3.60 (.89)
3.47 (.97)
3.50 (1.00)
3.40 (1.10)
3.40 (.89)
3.17 (.98)
3.14 (1.30)
2.72 (1.36)
3.38 (1.11)
3.38 (1.05)
2.69 (1.34)
2.93 (1.43)
Generic
Text summary
TVJ
Specific
Text summary
TVJ
Del M (SD)
Post M (SD)
Pre M (SD)
Post M (SD)
Pre M (SD)
Post M (SD)
Del M (SD)
Pre M (SD)
TABLE 1
Pretest, Posttest, and Delayed Posttest Scores on the Testing Tasks Across the Groups
Del M (SD)
272
FIGURE 2
Generic Text Summary: Performance Across Groups
group and between the comparison and metalinguistic group for the specific component of
both the text summary test, direct only, and
comparison: F(1.59,57) = 21.34, p < .01, p 2 =
.27; metalinguistic and comparison: F(1.91,57) =
15.54, p < .01, p 2 = .21, and TVJT, direct only
and comparison: F(1.84,57) = 8.66, p < .01, p 2 =
.13; metalinguistic and comparison: F(1.74,57) =
10.64, p < .01, p 2 = .16. However, no significant
differences were detected in the performance
of the two feedback groups, text summary test:
F(1.78,58) < .01, p = .99, p 2 < .01, TVJ test:
FIGURE 3
Specific Text Summary: Performance Across Groups
273
274
TABLE 2
Results of t-tests Comparing the Comparison Group With the Direct Only and Direct Metalinguistic Groups
in Specific Reference Contexts
Groups/Testing Task
Comparisondirect only
Specific text summary
Specific TVJ
Comparisondirect metalinguistic
Specific text summary
Specific TVJ
Gain Score
t(57)
Pretestposttest
Pretestdel. posttest
Pretestposttest
Pretestdel. posttest
5.44
4.73
2.12
3.87
<.01*
<.01*
.04
<.01*
1.41
1.34
.55
1.00
Pretestposttest
Pretestdel. posttest
Pretestposttest
Pretestdel. posttest
4.69
4.48
2.00
4.50
<.01*
<.01*
.05
<.01*
1.17
1.20
.52
1.17
feedback groups. Independent samples t-tests revealed no significant group difference in grammatical sensitivity, t(57) = 1.54, p = .13, d = .40,
and knowledge of metalanguage, t(57) = 1.32,
p = .19, d = .34. Spearman correlational analyses found medium size relationships between the
two learner difference measures ( 2 = .12, n = 60,
p < .01).
To assess whether the impact of direct WCF on
article use, with or without metalinguistic comments, was related to learner differences in grammatical sensitivity and knowledge of metalanguage (RQ2), a series of Spearman correlations
were calculated. As shown in Table 4, there were
no significant correlations between the pretest
scores and the learner factors for any of the four
testing tasks in the two experimental groups, indicating no initial significant relationships between
the learner factors and the pretest assessments.
Table 5 shows the results of the correlations
computed between the measures of learner differences and the pretestposttest and pretest
delayed posttest gain scores of the two experimental groups on the two assessment tasks. Four significant correlations were identified, all of which
concerned the gain scores of the direct feed-
TABLE 3
Performance on Learner Difference Measures Across the Experimental Groups
Direct Only
(N = 30)
Test
Grammatical sensitivity
Metalanguage
Direct Metalinguistic
(N = 30)
SD
SD
11.90
8.50
3.19
2.16
10.67
7.63
3.01
2.88
Note. The total scores were 15 and 10 points for the tests of grammatical sensitivity and metalanguage, respectively.
275
Testing Task
Generic
Text sum.
TVJ
Specific
Text sum.
TVJ
Grammatical Sensitivity
Direct Only
Direct Meta
Direct Only
Direct Meta
.44
.24
.02
.20
.15
.13
.44
.49
.04
.12
.83
.52
.19
.04
.31
.83
.21
.05
.26
.80
.22
.16
.24
.41
.13
.08
.48
.69
<.01
.31
.97
.10
TABLE 5
Correlations Between Measures of Learner Differences and Gain Scores of the Direct Only and Direct
Metalinguistic Groups
Metalanguage
Direct Only
Testing Task
Generic
Text sum.
TVJ
Specific
Text sum.
TVJ
Gain Score
Prepost
Predel. post
Prepost
Predel. post
.08
.01
.08
.10
Prepost
Predel. post
Prepost
Predel. post
.50
.49
<.01
.02
Grammatical Sensitivity
Direct Meta
Direct Only
Direct Meta
.67
.95
.68
.60
.20
.18
.21
.18
.29
.33
.26
.34
.20
.16
.43
.34
.30
.40
.02
.06
.16
.08
.17
.04
.39
.67
.38
.82
<.01*
<.01*
.99
.93
.25
.18
.37
.07
.19
.35
.04
.73
.60
.60
.04
.15
<.01*
<.01*
.82
.42
.34
.32
.11
.11
.06
.09
.55
.58
Note. Direct Meta = direct metalinguistic, *p < .01, prepost = pretestposttest, predel. post = pretestdelayed
posttest.
276
of introspective methods (e.g., stimulated recall
protocols).
A second issue that deserves attention regarding the results for the overall effectiveness of WCF
is the fact that the differences in gains between
the experimental and comparison groups were of
a much larger effect size on the text summary
test as compared to the TVJ test. The principle of
Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP) may offer
an explanation for this finding. The fundamental
tenet of TAP is that we can better transfer and remember what we have learned if the cognitive processes that are active during learning are similar to
those that are active during retrieval (Lightbown,
2008, p. 27). One implication of TAP is that when
there is a match between the learning and testing conditions in an effects-of-instruction experiment, participants will be better able to retrieve
what they have learned during the instructional
treatment and use it in the assessment. Applying
this principle to the present study, the participants
may have demonstrated higher gains on the text
summary test because, unlike the TVJ test, the text
summary required them to use articles under conditions that were very similar to those they had
previously encountered during the treatment.
Having established the positive effects of direct
WCF on L2 article use, we examined the extent
to which the learners development differed
depending on whether they received direct feedback only or direct feedback supplemented with
metalinguistic information. The statistical analyses, conducted to compare the pretestposttest
and pretestdelayed posttest gains of the two
experimental groups on the two assessment tasks,
yielded no significant difference. Our results then
largely reflect those documented by Bitchener
(2008) and Bitchener and Knoch (2008), who
found no benefits for complementing direct
feedback with metalinguistic comments, and
run contrary to Sheens (2007) findings, who
detected superior gains in article use on all of
her three assessment tasks when metalinguistic
information was also available to learners.
A possible explanation for the conflicting findings might lie in the nature of the treatment tasks
employed. In Bitchener and Knochs research,
the participants completed picture description
tasks in a way that is similar to the present study
where participants were asked to provide short
descriptions of pictures based on a descriptive
text they had previously heard. The descriptive
task in the current study elicited a list of sentences
rather than a cohesive text, and it is likely that
the written output produced by Bitchener and
Knochs participants was similar in nature. This
277
cus on learner difference factors that have not
yet been investigated (grammatical sensitivity and
familiarity with metalinguistic terms). Corroborating the results of previous empirical research
and contrary to Truscotts (1996) claims, the provision of direct WCF on article use was found
to be superior to the comparison condition. Interestingly, however, supplementing direct WCF
with metalinguistic comments afforded little additional benefit to learners. Furthermore, participants with greater grammatical sensitivity and
familiarity with metalinguistic terminology appeared to improve more only when direct feedback, in the absence of metalinguistic comments,
was supplied in response to article errors. No significant links emerged between the measures of
learner differences and the gains of the experimental group that received direct feedback and
metalinguistic comments. This pattern of findings
is in line with Erlams (2005) proposal that conditions rich in input may have the capacity to neutralize learner differences in cognitive abilities.
Finally, some limitations of the study need to be
acknowledged and considered in future research.
First, the text summary task constituted a focused
pedagogic task, which was designed to elicit specific and generic article use. As a consequence, it
lacked situational authenticity (Ellis, 2003), and
involved article use in relatively controlled contexts only. To address these limitations, an important avenue for future research would involve
extending the research questions posed here to
tasks that resemble more real-life uses of language
and elicit less controlled application of the target rule. Second, we focused on only one aspect
of article use, thus it is not straightforward that
our results would transfer to other linguistic targets (Xu, 2009). This imposes limits on the generalizability of the findings and weakens the claims
we made about feedback efficacy. Thus, a replication of this study with complex linguistic constructions would be especially desirable, given that little is known about the impact of WCF on complex L2 features. A third, related limitation concerns the fact that we only sought evidence about
the participants development in producing and
comprehending the linguistic target. No attempt
was made to examine the potential impact of feedback on the linguistic complexity of learners production as in Hartshorn et al. (2010) and Van Beuningen et al. (2012). Given that the text summary test elicited a list of simple sentences rather
than a text, the learners output was not amenable
to analysis in terms of linguistic complexity measures. Using less controlled tasks in future research, as suggested before, would help resolve
278
this issue. Fourth, our investigation included only
two learner factors. Thus, as suggested by Kormos (2012), further studies exploring the moderating effects of other learner factors, such as working memory capacity and motivation, are also warranted. In future research, context-specific factors
should also be taken into consideration, since issues such as learners schooling environment together with their teachers guidance and assessment practices may shape their capacity to benefit from pedagogical interventions. Finally, followup research would profit from utilizing introspective methods to uncover how learners engage with
different types of WCF, and whether this might
be influenced by learner differences in cognitive
abilities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the editor and the three
anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on
this article. Any errors, of course, are our own. This research was supported by the Language Learning Dissertation Grant awarded to Charis Stefanou.
NOTE
1
REFERENCES
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude, and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1,
93121.
Berry, R. (2009). EFL majors knowledge of metalinguistic terminology: A comparative study. Language
Awareness, 18, 113128.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New
York: Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written
corrective feedback for migrant and international
students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409431.
279
rection on the accurate use of grammatical forms
by ESL learners. System, 37, 556569.
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners explicit and
implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286
306.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 6994). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Snape, N., Garca Mayo, M., & Grel, A. (2009). Spanish, Turkish, Japanese and Chinese L2 learners acquisition of generic reference. In M. Bowles et al.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches
to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 18).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Stefanou, C. (2010). The use of the English article system
by Greek learners of English. (Unpublished masters
thesis). Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303334.
Suh, B. R. (2010). Written feedback in second language acquisition: Exploring the roles of type of feedback, linguistic targets, awareness and concurrent verbalization.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown
University, Washington, DC.
Trenkic, D. (2007). Variability in second language article production: Beyond the representational
deficit vs. processing constraints debate. Second
Language Research, 23, 289327.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007).
How effective are recasts? The role of attention,
memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46,
327369.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on
learners ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255272.
Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F.
(2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 141.
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (2013).
Aptitudetreatment interactions in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In
G. Granena & M. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273
292). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus:
A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener
(2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270
275.
280
Appendix
Version A of Assessment Tasks
Task 1: Text Summary
As part of a school visit to the zoo you have to write a short description about some animals. First you have 3 minutes
to read the given text. Then the text will be replaced with some pictures. You have to write a summary of the text in
English using the pictures to help you remember what it was about.
Text 1:
.
.
,
.
A .
T
.
.
.
281
(Translation)
Lions are the king of the jungle. Lions usually sleep during the day and hunt during the night. Lions
are usually used in circuses.
The lions in our town zoo were brought from Africa. The lions play with a ball all day. Last week the lions
had two babies. Next month the lions will be transferred to France.
Task 2: Truth Value Judgment
Read the following stories and decide if the sentence given below each story is True or False by circling
the corresponding choice. Your decision should be based on the story.
Story 1:
Most cinemas have several rows with seats. But there are three strange cinemas. They dont have seats,
they only have several sofas.
The cinemas have several sofas. TRUE FALSE
Story 2:
Most hotels are very noisy places because of the hundreds of people who live there. But two hotels are
always very quiet. There is a rule that forbids guests to make loud noise.
Hotels are very quiet. TRUE FALSE
Story 3:
Yesterday I heard a very funny story that happened in a school. A little boy was being chased by a little
girl around the school yard because he had stolen her favorite doll.
A little girl was chasing a little boy. TRUE FALSE
Story 4:
In our History class we were taught that most castles were made of big pieces of stone. But the teacher
said that there were two castles that were different. They were made of wood instead of stones.
These castles were made of stones. TRUE FALSE
Story 5:
Most hotels are very noisy places because of the hundreds of people who live there. But two hotels are
always very quiet. There is a rule that forbids guests to make loud noise.
The hotels are very noisy. TRUE FALSE
Story 6:
Yesterday I was at the park and I saw something unusual. A dog was being followed by two squirrels all
around the park.
A dog was following two squirrels. TRUE FALSE
Story 7:
Most cinemas have several rows with seats. But there are three strange cinemas. They dont have seats,
they only have several sofas.
Cinemas have several rows with seats. TRUE FALSE
Story 8:
In ancient Greece most temples didnt have guards to protect them. But two temples were very special.
They were very rich and so they had guards to protect them.
These temples had guards to protect them. TRUE FALSE
282
Story 9:
Last night I saw a film about strange animal stories. There was a case of a sheep which was being protected
by a cow while it was injured in the farm.
A cow was protecting a sheep. TRUE FALSE
Story 10:
In ancient Greece most temples didnt have guards to protect them. But two temples were very special.
They were very rich and so they had guards to protect them.
Temples had guards to protect them. TRUE FALSE
Story 11:
In our History class we were taught that most castles were made of big pieces of stone. But the teacher
said that there were two castles that were different. They were made of wood instead of stones.
The castles were made of wood. TRUE FALSE
Story 12:
Last night I saw a film about strange animal stories. There was a case of a sheep which was being protected
by a cow while it was injured in the farm.
A sheep was protecting a cow. TRUE FALSE
Story 13:
Most hotels are very noisy places because of the hundreds of people who live there. But two hotels are
always very quiet. There is a rule that forbids guests to make loud noise.
These hotels are very quiet. TRUE FALSE
Story 14:
In ancient Greece most temples didnt have guards to protect them. But two temples were very special.
They were very rich and so they had guards to protect them.
The temples didnt have guards to protect them. TRUE FALSE
Story 15:
Yesterday I heard a very funny story that happened in a school. A little boy was being chased by a little
girl around the school yard because he had stolen her favorite doll.
A little boy was chasing a little girl. TRUE FALSE
Story 16:
Most cinemas have several rows with seats. But there are three strange cinemas. They dont have seats,
they only have several sofas.
These cinemas have several rows with seats. TRUE FALSE
Story 17:
In our History class we were taught that most castles were made of big pieces of stone. But the teacher
said that there were two castles that were different. They were made of wood instead of stones.
Castles were made of stones. TRUE FALSE
Story 18:
Yesterday I was at the park and I saw something unusual. A dog was being followed by two squirrels all
around the park.
Two squirrels were following a dog. TRUE FALSE
Copyright of Modern Language Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.