The effects of negotiated feedback in the writing conference onl2 error correction and l2 uptake

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION GRADUATION THESIS THE EFFECTS OF NEGOTIATED FEEDBACK IN THE WRITING CONFERENCE ON L2 ERROR CORRECTION AND L2 UPTAKE Supervisor: Dr Nguyễn Chí Đức Student: Phạm Nguyễn Quỳnh Anh Course: QH2016.F1.E1 HÀ NỘI – 2020 ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP 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 Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Dr Nguyễn Chí Đức Sinh viên: Phạm Nguyễn Quỳnh Anh Khóa: QH2016.F1.E1 HÀ NỘI – 2020 I hereby state that I: (Student’s name, class), being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (programme) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper Signature Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper would not have been possible without the help and guidance of Mr Nguyen Chi Duc, who provided me with clear instructions, critical comments, and prompt support I am profusely grateful for his constructive critique and devoted supervision, without which I would not have been able to complete this thesis successfully I would also want to extend my gratitude to all the participants, who dedicated their time and efforts this research In addition, I cannot disregard the help from my beloved ones, who motivated and provided me with unlimited mental support Last but not least, I thank myself for always trying to move forward ABSTRACT In the world of L2 learning and teaching, feedback has always been a muchdebated 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/upperintermediate 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 feedforward 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 and L2 uptake TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES INTRODUCTION Rationale Research aim and overall research design 10 Expected contributions 10 Organization of this report 11 Chapter 13 LITERATURE REVIEW 13 Key concepts 13 1.1 Error vs mistake 13 1.2 Feedback vs feedforward 15 1.3 Writing conference 16 1.4 Negotiation episodes 17 1.5 Second language uptake: declarative vs procedural knowledge 18 Theoretical frameworks 19 2.1 Output Hypothesis 19 2.2 Interaction Hypothesis 20 2.3 Socio-cultural Theory 21 2.4 The backbone of this study 24 Empirical research into the effects of feedback, negotiated feedback, and writing conference on error correction and L2 uptake 25 3.1 Empirical studies into the effects of feedback on error correction and L2 uptake 25 3.2 Empirical studies into the effects of feedback engagement on error correction and L2 uptake 26 3.3 Empirical studies into the effects of writing conferences on error correction and L2 uptake 28 Research gaps 30 Chapter 2: 31 METHODOLOGY 31 Research Questions 31 Research site 31 Sampling 32 Research tools 32 4.1 Writing conferences 32 4.2 Writing drafts 36 4.3 Learner-specific tests 37 Data collection 39 Data analysis 40 6.1 Research question 01 40 6.2 Research question 02 41 6.3 Research question 03 42 Chapter 43 FINDINGS 43 Research question 01 43 Research question 02 48 Chapter 51 DISCUSSION & PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 51 Discussion 51 Pedagogical implications 56 CONCLUSION 58 Summary of the findings 58 Limitations of the study 59 Suggestions for further research 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY 61 APPENDICES 70 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table ERROR CODING SCHEME 37 Table POST-TEST MARKING SCHEME 38 Table NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT N IN THE SUGGESTED TEACHER-TO-STUDENT WRITING CONFERENCE 43 Table NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT P IN THE SUGGESTED TEACHER-TO-STUDENT WRITING CONFERENCE 44 Table NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT T IN THE PEERTO-PEER WRITING CONFERENCE 44 Table NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT T IN THE PEERTO-PEER WRITING CONFERENCE 45 Table NEGOTIATION PARTICIPATION OF STUDENT Q IN THE PEER-TO-PEER WRITING CONFERENCE 46 Table STUDENT N’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION 48 Table STUDENT P’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION 48 Table 10 STUDENT T’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION 49 Table 11 STUDENT L’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION 49 Table 12 STUDENT Q’S SUCCESS RATE OF ERROR CORRECTION 49 INTRODUCTION Rationale In foreign/second language (L2) writing instruction, giving written corrective feedback (henceforth referred to as WCF for short) to student writing is generally deemed to lie at the heart of formative assessment However, the question as to whether WCF is indeed conducive to learning has engendered a heated debate among both L2 writing researchers and instructors (please refer to Karim and Nassaji (2019) for a critical review and Kang and Han (2015) and Liu and Brown (2015) for a systematic review) This debate got to the climax when Truscott (1996) put forward an idea that WCF was, in general, “ineffective” and even “harmful” to both writing development as well as general L2 acquisition (p.327) This standpoint immediately receives many critiques from various scholars far and wide (e.g., Ferris (1999); Bruton (2009); Chandler (2009)) Although Truscott’s view above is too strong a claim, he does draw our attention to several limitations in the way that WCF is typically given in our traditional L2 writing classroom First of all, such feedback is often provided in a unidirectional, but not a dialogic manner This consequently deprives L2 students of the opportunity to interact with the instructor to understand the feedback As this feedback is not fully understood, L2 students have a high tendency to copy the instructor’s correction into the new versions of their writing verbatim without any mental engagement with the feedback Even if L2 students themselves would like to further unpack this feedback, they rarely receive adequate external support or scaffolding from their instructor in such a selfinitiative Therefore, the matter might not lie in whether we should continue to give WCF to student writing, but how WCF should be given Given the limitations delineated above, the present study proposes a three-step writing conference in which L2 students first work with the instructor and fasten their focus on a particular erroneous language point, analyze a collection of samples of how this language point should be used in a standard way with a view to figuring out the underlying patterns or rules, and then plan for their error correction as well as further study of this language point The ultimate goal of this writing conference is to transform our traditional feedback sessions into learning affordances that L2 students can negotiate with their instructor to understand the given feedback, which, in turn, hopefully enables students to pick up the underlying knowledge associated with this feedback Research aim and overall research design This study aims to examine the relative effects of the proposed three-step Teacher-to-Student writing conference on error correction and L2 uptake To this end, I shall compare the success rate of error correction as well as the amount of L2 uptake that the above writing conference brings about against that of a typical Peer-to-Peer writing conference To be more specific, the present study seeks answers to the following research questions: (a) How are L2 students engaged in the suggested writing conference with their writing instructor and in the conventional one with their peers? (b) What is the effect of this engagement on error correction? Is this effect more pronounced in the case of the suggested writing conference? (c) What is the effect of this engagement on L2 uptake? Is this effect more pronounced in the case of the suggested writing conference? Theoretically, this study is grounded on Swain’s Output Hypothesis (2005), Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996), and Vygotsky’s Socio-cultural Theory (1987) Unlike most of the previous studies in this area, the present research makes use of both negotiated feedback and feedforward as well as the notion of scaffolding to mentally engage L2 students in their error correction in the writing conference This study adopts a case-study method for its overall research design Research participants are five intermediate EFL students recruited from a language learning center in Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam Expected contributions This study is meaningful in at least three different ways First, it is among the pioneers that incorporate both feedback and feedforward into the writing conference Second, it does not only examine the effects of the suggested writing Chandler, J (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement of the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing Journal of Second Language Writing 12.3, 267–296 Chandler, J (2009) Response to Truscott Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 57-58 Chaudron, C (1977) A Descriptive Model Of Discourse In The Corrective Treatment Of Learners Errors1 Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x Cohen, L., Manion, L & Morrison, K (2007) Research methods in Education (6th ed).New York: Routledge Corder, S P (1967) The significance of learners’ errors International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–9 Corder, S P (1974) Error analysis In J Allen and S P Corder (Eds.): The Edinburgh course in applied linguistics, Vol (pp 122–54) London, England: Oxford University Press Donato, R (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning In J Lantolf & G Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 33–56 Ellis, N., & Beaton, A (1993) Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning Language Learning, 43, 559–617 Ellis, R (1999) Theoretical perspectives on interaction and language learning In Ellis, R (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp 331) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Ferris, D (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996) Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, l-l1 Ferris, D (2004) The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where we go from here? (and what we in the meantime .?) Journal of Second Language Writing 13.1, 49–62 Ferris, D., & Roberts, B (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161184 Ferris, D.R & Hedgcock, J.S (2005) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice 2nd edition Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Gass, S M., & Mackey, A J (2007) Input, interaction and output in SLA In B VanPatten, & J Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp 175-199) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Genesee, F., & Upshur, J A (1996) Classroom-based evaluation in second language education Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gibbons, P (2007) Mediating academic language learning through classroom discourse International Handbook of English Language Teaching, 701– 718 doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_46 Gillet, J W., & Beverly, L (2001) Directing the writing workshop: an elementary teachers handbook New York: Guilford Press Goldstein, L & S Conrad (1990) Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences TESOL Quarterly 24.3, 443–460 Graves, D H (1994) A fresh look at writing Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Guerrero, M de & O Villamil (1994) Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision The Modern Language Journal 78.4, 484– 496 Guetzlaff, E C (2013) The effects of peer-conferencing on writing revisions in a second grade classroom Graduate Research Papers, 173 Han, Y., & Hyland, F (2015) Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44 Hendrickson, J (1978) Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398 Kang, E., & Han, Z (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18 doi: 10.1111/modl.12189 Karim, K., & Nassaji, H (2019) The effects of written corrective feedback Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28–52 doi: 10.1558/isla.37949 Kepner, C G (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills Modern Language Journal, 7, 305-313 Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A (2001) (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity Theory: Understanding second language learners as people In Breen, M (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp 141–158) London: Longman Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S L (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development Oxford: Oxford University Press Leki, I (1990) Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response In B Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.57–68) Leki, I (2007) ‘You cannot ignore’: Graduate L2 students’ experience of and responses to written feedback practices within their disciplines In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp.266–285) New York: Cambridge University Press Li, S (2010) The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A MetaAnalysis Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365 doi: 10.1111/j.14679922.2010.00561.x Liu, Y (2008) The effects of error feedback in second language writing Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching 15: 65–79 Liu, Q., & Brown, D (2015) Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81 doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011 Lockhart, C & P Ng (1993) How useful is peer response? Perspectives 5.1, 17– 29 Long, M H (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition In W Ritchie & T Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp 413-468) San Diego, CA: Academic Press Marzban, A., & Sarjami, S M (2014) Collaborative Negotiated Feedback versus Teacher-written Feedback: Impact on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Writing Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2) doi: 10.4304/tpls.4.2.293-302 McCarthy, S.J and McMahon, S (1992) From convention to invention: Three approaches to peer interaction during writing In R Hertz-Lazarowitz and M Miller (Eds), Interaction in Cooperative Groups: The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning (pp 17–35) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press McGroarty, M & W Zhu (1997) Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision Language Learning 47.1, 01–43 McNeil, L (2012) Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396–404 doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.005 Mendoca, C & K Johnson (1994) Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction TESOL Quarterly 28.4, 745–768 Paulus, T M (1999) The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289 Morsali, S (2014) The effect of written corrective feedback on the acquisition of English prepositions Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 4, 227–243 Nassaji, H (2007b) Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners' written errors In S Fotos & H Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp 117-129) Oxford: Oxford University Press Nassaji, H (2011) Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.2 Nassaji, H (2017b) Diversity of research methods and strategies in language teaching research Language Teaching Research 21: 140–3 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817693696 Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E (2017) Introduction Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning, ix-xv doi: 10.4324/9781315621432-1 Nation, I S P., & Webb, S (2011) Researching and analyzing vocabulary Boston, MA: Heinle Nation, I S P (2013) Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.) Cambridge: University Press Nelson, G & J Murphy (1992) An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions Journal of Second Language Writing 1.3, 171–193 Pajares, F., Miller, M D., & Johnson, M J (1999) Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 50–61 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.50 Pica, T (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527 Robb, T., Ross, S and Shortreed, I (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality TESOL Quarterly 20, 83–93 Rollinson, P (2005) Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class ELT Journal, 59(1), 23- 30 Routman, R (2005) Writing essentials: raising expectations and results while simplifying teaching Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Schmidt, R (1993) Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics Semke, H (1984) The effects of the red pen Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202 Shell, D F., Murphy, C C., & Bruning, R H (1989) Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91–100 https://doi.org/10.1037/00220663.81.1.91 Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G (2010) Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334 Swain, M (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development In S Gass & C Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 235–253) Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Swain, M (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning In G Cook & B Seidlehofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G Widdowson (pp 125–144) Oxford: Oxford University Press Swain, M (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue In Lantolf, J (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp 97–114) Oxford: Oxford University Press Swain, M (2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research In E Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp.147-183) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language Learning 46.2, 327–369 Truscott, J., & Hsu, A Y (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 292–305 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 Van den Branden, K (1997) Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output Language Learning, 47, 589-636 Van Beuningen, C G., De Jong, N H., & Kuiken, F (2008) The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156: 279–96 https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.156.24beu; https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439 Vygotsky, L (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Vygotsky, L S (1987) The collected works, Volume 1, including Thinking and speaking New York: Plenum Walker, M (2013) Feedback and feedforward: Student responses and their implications In S Merry, M Price, D Carless, & M Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students (pp 103–112) London: Routledge Walqui, A (2006) Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A Conceptual Framework International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180 doi: 10.1080/13670050608668639 Wells, G (1998) Using L1 to Master L2: A response to Antn and DiCamilla’s ‘Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom’ Canadian Modern Language Review 54, 343–353 Wells, G (1999) Dialogic inquiry Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education Cambridge: Cambridge University Press White, L (1987) Against Comprehensible Input: the Input Hypothesis and the Development of Second-language Competence Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 95–110 doi: 10.1093/applin/8.2.95 Williams, J (2002) Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center Journal of Basic Writing 21.2, 73–91 Williams, J (2004) Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3, 173–201 Zamel, V (1985) Responding to student writing TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 7997 Zhang, Z V (2017) Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: a case study ELT Journal doi: 10.1093/elt/ccw089 Zheng, Y., & Yu, S (2018) Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24 doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Consent form Name of Researcher(s) Pham Nguyen Quynh Anh Title of study The effects of negotiated feedback in writing conferences on L2 writing improvement and L2 uptake Please read and complete this form carefully If you are willing to participate in this study, ring the appropriate responses and sign and date the declaration at the end If you not understand anything and would like more information, please ask  I have had the research satisfactorily explained to me in verbal and / or written form by the researcher YES / NO  I understand that the research will involve a teaching session, conference session and testing session YES / NO  I understand that I would have to complete the work assigned to me honestly YES / NO  I understand that I may withdraw from this study at any time without having to give an explanation This will not affect my future care or treatment YES / NO  I understand that all information about me will be treated in strict confidence and that I will not be named in any written work arising from this study YES / NO 70  I understand that any audiotape material of me will be used solely for research purposes and will be destroyed on completion of the research YES / NO  I understand that you will be discussing the progress of your research with others lecturers or researchers at the University and Languages and International Studies YES / NO I freely give my consent to participate in this research study and have been given a copy of this form for my own information Signature: …………………………………………………………………….………… Date: ……………………………………………………………………………… 71 APPENDIX 2: Sample post-test (Student N) Missing article (the) Level 4: …… impacts of human activities on the environment can be devastating Level 3: Despite …… drawbacks of maintaining zoos, benefits to both human and animals outweigh negative points Level 2: …… impacts of human activities on the environment can be devastating a The b An c None Level 1: Despite drawbacks of maintaining zoos, benefits to both human and animals outweigh negative points a The b An c None Wrong word form (adj-n) Level 4: There was a ……… decline the number of people went to the zoo Level 3: Animal rights activists could object to the …… effects of zoos on animals Level 2: There was a ……… decline the number of people went to the zoo a Significantly b Significance c significant Level 1: Animal rights activists could object to the ……… effects of zoos on animals a Significantly b Significance c significant Wrong punctuation Level 4: I am allergic to seafood …… I cannot eat sushi (therefore) 72 Level 3: Keeping them in captivity leads to a lower ability to adapt in natural environment …… animals in the zoo cannot survive in the wild (therefore) Level 2: I am allergic to seafood therefore I cannot eat sushi a therefore b , therefore c ; therefore, Level 1: Keeping them in captivity leads to a lower ability to adapt in natural environment …… animals in the zoo cannot survive in the wild a therefore b , therefore c ; therefore, Wrong noun form (singular-plural) Level 4: More and more people are joining movements that advocate …… rights (nhân quyền) Level 3: Some human actions such as beating, electrocuting and starving with the purpose of taming violate …… rights (quyền động vật) Level 2: More and more people are joining movements that advocate …… rights (nhân quyền) a human b humans c human’s Level 1: Some human actions such as beating, electrocuting and starving with the purpose of taming violate …… rights a animal b animals c animal’s Wrong word form (noun-verb) Level 4: Travelling is not only fun but also beneficial because it would …… you to a wealth of knowledge (tiết lộ cho điều gì, cho tiếp cận với điều gì) 73 Level 3: For example, through some field trips for teenagers, it would …… knowledge about the importance of preventing the extinction of wild animals (tiết lộ cho điều gì, cho tiếp cận với điều gì) Level 2: Travelling is not only fun but also beneficial because it would …… you to a wealth of knowledge (tiết lộ cho điều gì, cho tiếp cận với điều gì) a exposure b expose c exposed Level 1: For example, through some field trips for teenagers, it would …… knowledge about the importance of preventing the extinction of wild animals a exposure to b expose them to c exposure them Missing linking verb (to be) Level 4: My parents protective They …… against my travelling alone Level 3: Zoos …… against the law Level 2: My parents protective They …… against my travelling alone a are b is c none Level 1: Zoos …… against the law d are e is f none Unnecessary article Level 4: …… skin cancer is becoming a lot more common Level 3: Through some field trips, …… animal love may be nurtured Level 2: …… skin cancer is becoming a lot more common a the 74 b an c none Level 1: Through some field trips, …… animal love may be nurtured a the b an c none Missing possessive adjective Level 4: People can maintain … fitness by exercising regularly and eating a balanced diet Level 3: Despite the drawbacks of maintaining the existence of zoos, …… benefits to both human and animals outweigh negative points Level 2: People can maintain … fitness by exercising regularly and eating a balanced diet a their b theirs c none Level 1: Despite the drawbacks of maintaining the existence of zoos, …… benefits to both human and animals outweigh negative points a their b theirs c none Wrong sentence structure Level 4: … teaching children to not be picky eaters is important Level 3: … keeping them in captivity leads to a decrease in self-adaptive instincts in natural environment Level 2: … teaching children to not be picky eaters is important a That b This 75 c None Level 1: … keeping them in captivity leads to a decrease in self-adaptive instincts in natural environment a That b This c None 76 ... 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 feedforward The findings of. .. writing conference on error correction and L2 uptake 25 3.1 Empirical studies into the effects of feedback on error correction and L2 uptake 25 3.2 Empirical studies into the effects. .. together can work as the backbone of the present research project Empirical research into the effects of feedback, negotiated feedback, and writing conference on error correction and L2 uptake