Teacher Feedback on Grammar Errors: Stimulus for Learning or Confidence Breaker?

(1)

1

English Studies in Education

15 Credits, Second Cycle

Teacher Feedback on Grammar Errors:

Stimulus for Learning or Confidence

Breaker?

Lärares respons på grammatiska fel: ökar det lärande eller

försämrar det elevers självförtroende?

Johan Gottsäter

Master of Arts in Education, 300 Credits English Studies in Education

28 of May 2018

Examiner: Shannon Sauro

Supervisor: Anna Wärnsby

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

(2)

(3)

3

Abstract

There is no universal view on written corrective feedback, the existing research does not agree on whether it is effective or not. Therefore, this degree paper aims to find out if teachers engage in written corrective feedback, and if so, then also how they do it. Moreover, this it gives an insight into the previous research on the area, which is compared to the findings of this paper. This study is based on a survey which 27 English teachers at the upper secondary school answered, and the follow-up semi-structured interviews with three of the 27

participants in the survey. The findings include that the teachers who participated in the survey of this paper do engage in written corrective feedback to a large extent. In addition, the teachers also reported that they do so most often through providing students with comments in the margin of the students’ texts. The three conclusions of this degree paper are as follows. Firstly, the interviewed teachers believe that their written corrective feedback improves their students’ proficiency. Secondly, the most common methods for providing written corrective feedback amongst the teachers are also the most time consuming alternative. Thirdly, when it comes to scaffolding, the most common method amongst the participating teachers is

providing students with information where students can find the correct answer, as the teachers argue this creates a learning opportunity for the students.

Keywords: Written corrective feedback, Formative assessment, Scaffolding, English proficiency, Teachers’ beliefs

(4)

4

Grammar is an essential aspect of language learning. Therefore, knowing the grammatical structures and being able to use the language with accuracy is of importance. According to Estling Vannestål, a lack of knowledge of the language’s grammar increases the risk of communication breakdown (2015, p. 19). With this in mind, it would seem logical to include grammar explicitly in the syllabus for English.

According to the syllabus for English, created by the Swedish educational agency Skolverket, teachers should give the students the chance to improve their English proficiency: “Through teaching, students should also be given the opportunity to develop correctness in their use of language in speech and writing” (Skolverket, 2011). Moreover, the syllabus states that

students should be assessed on aspects of language such as if their text is written clearly, with variation, coherently, and fluently (Skolverket, 2011). This is as close as the syllabus comes to grammar. The syllabus does not include the word grammar explicitly one single time. One reason for the shift away from grammar in the syllabus could be that the aim of the subject English states that the focus shall be on “all - round communicative skills” (Skolverket, 2011). The shift away from grammar is not a new phenomenon. In 1970, the syllabus for English at the upper secondary level shifted its focus from grammatical knowledge to

communicative skills, as it stated that grammar should be in the service of the communicative skills, and not have any intrinsic value (Lundahl, 2012, p. 44). However, if grammar is not included in the syllabus, it creates a dilemma for teachers: teacher beliefs that teaching

grammar is beneficial for students and should therefore be taught is, therefore, in conflict with the limited time that is available for teaching all the different issues already mentioned in the curriculum.

Using formative assessment as a method for enhancing students’ grammatical knowledge can serve as an effective method for teaching grammar. As formative assessment is something which teachers use in order to find out how much a student has achieved so far, and what the student could do in order to improve their knowledge (Tuttle, 2013, p. 55), it is something which could be used for improving students’ grammatical knowledge as well. One method which could be used formatively in order to improve students’ grammatical knowledge is corrective feedback. According to Sauro, corrective feedback has been defined as responding to a student’s output in which there exists language errors (2018, p. 1). Corrective feedback involves the teacher giving feedback to a student where he or she has marked errors; this can

(7)

7

be carried out in a number of different ways. Engaging in corrective feedback in a formative way requires the inclusion of certain elements. One example of how corrective feedback could be formative is by first giving the students valuable input of how the grammatical structure is constructed accurately, and possibly additional exercises connected to the

grammatical structure in question, followed by the students handing in a written assignment, and then giving students corrective feedback with a focus on grammatical errors in the written assignment. However, only marking errors is not formative feedback, as formative feedback requires the teacher to inform the students of how they can improve, which in this example can be done through presenting students with a place in a book where they can acquire the correct answer along with an explanation. Since formative assessment can be an effective tool for language learning (Greenstein, 2010, p. 32), a relevant question is whether teachers

engage in it when it comes to correcting grammatical errors. This degree project investigates to what extent English teachers at the upper secondary school in Sweden present their students with corrective feedback. Moreover, the degree project also investigates if teachers would focus more on grammar during lessons, and in corrective feedback, if it was mentioned explicitly in the syllabus.

I find this area to be of importance due to the disagreement about the effectiveness of corrective feedback on grammar in existing research (see section 3.2.2), and my personal experience. Many studies have been conducted on whether or not it is advantageous to engage in written corrective feedback, and also how those who do engage in it actually do it, these studies have reached different conclusions (see section 3.2.2). Furthermore, during my years as a student I have had many teachers, and the teachers had different methods when it came to giving corrective feedback on grammatical structures. When I received corrective feedback from teachers that was not formative, I did not find it as useful as when it was formative. I enjoyed the feedback when it was obvious what I had done wrong, and how I should construct the grammatical form accurately. Consequently, I want to find out if English teachers in Sweden engage in written corrective feedback or not, even if in this study the scope is necessarily more narrow.

(8)

8

2. Aim & Research Questions

The aim of the degree project is to investigate to what extent English teachers at the upper secondary school present their students with written corrective feedback in connection to the grammatical errors which their students make.

Consequently, the three research questions of this degree project are as follows:

1. When engaging in written corrective feedback, what language structures do teachers comment on?

2. In what form do teachers comment on the grammatical errors made by students? 3. What scaffolds do teachers offer, if at all, to guide pupils when correcting their errors?

(9)

9

3. Theoretical background

In this theoretical background key concepts relevant to this degree project are defined and explained. One such key concept is formative assessment. Another crucial concept is corrective feedback. Corrective feedback is defined, with the focus on how it can help

students improve their grammatical accuracy based on previous research. Finally, the concept scaffolding is defined and elaborated on in terms of implications for students, as it is of importance to the corrective feedback if it aims to be formative.

3.1 Formative assessment

There are different types of assessment, but one which is extra relevant in this degree paper is formative assessment. According to Wiliam, formative assessment has its strengths in giving students assessment which enhances their learning (2011, p. 46). Formative assessment has been defined as: “encompassing all those activities undertaken by teachers, and/or their students, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activity in which they are engaged.” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 7) Furthermore, formative assessment occurs when teachers provide students with assessment which has the purpose of helping the students forward in their learning progress (Tuttle, 2013, p. 4; Wiliam, 2011, p. 45). In addition, when a teacher receives a written assignment from a student, then the teacher should diagnose the text; inform the student where he or she is at the moment, and how the student should go about it in order to improve (Tuttle, 2013, p. 4; Wiliam, 2011, p. 45). Furthermore, when the teacher knows how the student should improve the text, the student is informed about it, and when revision is done, the student has enhanced his or her English proficiency (Tuttle, 2013, p. 4; Jönsson, 2013, p. 13).

There is evidence which points to the fact that formative assessment increases student proficiency; however, there are some pitfalls which must be avoided for the formative assessment to be effective. Firstly, Andrade and Cizek argue that it is of utmost importance that students find the assessment received helpful for the development of their English proficiency (2010, p. 7). Secondly, another challenge, which Andrade and Cizek bring up, is that teachers experience difficulty in providing students with assessment that is specific enough, given at the right time, and encouraging enough (2010, p. 8). Thirdly, a risk

associated with giving assessment is that students might not understand the assessment, which only leads to frustration (Andrade & Cizek, 2010, p. 184).

(10)

10

Despite these pitfalls, it is still worth investing time in formative assessment. Even if at the first glance formative assessment might appear as something which is not worth the time it takes to do; Andrade and Cizek claims that by understanding its true potential, teachers can overcome this barrier (2010, p. 143). First of all, the students should make use of formative assessment on their texts to improve their proficiency. Basically, formative assessment is a source of information which students use to increase their knowledge (Andrade & Cizek, 2010, p. 7). Moreover, according to Greenstein, engaging with formative assessment reduces the gap between what students know, and what they do not know (2010, p. 32). However, only providing the students with formative assessment is not enough for the language gains to be guaranteed, the students need to work on the texts for their language to be improved. Tuttle encourages teachers to find out if the students have understood the assessment, which can be done through some form of a follow-up activity, either in the shape of a hand-in of a revised version of the same text, or another text where similar structures are targeted (2013, p. 100). According to Andrade and Cizek, formative assessment also serves another purpose, as many students typically commit similar errors which teachers can use address during upcoming lessons (2011, p. 111). Moreover, Wiliam argues that corrective feedback can be done to evaluate teaching material since it informs teachers of how much their students have learned ( 2011, p. 46). Despite the risks associated with formative assessment, and despite the time and energy which it requires, it is a practice which teachers at different levels strive to engage in (Andrade & Cizek, 2010, p. 106).

Existing research is not the only thing which encourages teachers to engage in formative feedback, the syllabus does so as well, albeit indirectly. The knowledge requirement for the English courses states that students should improve their own output: “Students work on and make improvements to their own communications.” (Skolverket, 2011). Formative feedback enhances students’ chances to successfully revise and improve their communications since it informs them of what they need to do to develop.

3.2 Written corrective feedback

One way to engage in formative assessment is through written corrective feedback. However, for the written corrective feedback to be formative, it has to be done in a certain way, which is time consuming. As mentioned previously, the written corrective feedback becomes formative

(11)

11

when you present students with a way to increase their knowledge: it could be in the shape of informing them of how a specific grammatical structure is supposed to be constructed. However, only informing students what they did wrong is not formative: it is the step after it which might qualify the corrective feedback as formative.

Corrective feedback has been described as a love-hate relationship for English teachers, as it helps students, but takes a lot of time and energy. For example, according to Leki (1990), offering feedback to students can have a positive effect on learning, but it is also time consuming for the teachers:

Writing teachers and students alike do intuit that written responses can have a great effect on student writing and attitude towards writing… Written comments are time consuming, but teachers continue to write comments on student papers because we sense that our comments help writers improve… (Leki, 1990, pp. 57-58).

In the quote above, Leki argues that corrective feedback can have a positive effect on learning, however, before committing to the extra work load which corrective feedback is, it is advantageous to know if it actually is of any help to the students. There are two different aspects which need to be explored: Whether corrective feedback has any positive short term impact on students’ grammatical accuracy, and whether these potential positive aspects have any long term effect.

3.2.1 The short term impact of written corrective feedback

According to several studies, written corrective feedback can have a positive impact on students’ English proficiency. Many studies have found that those who received corrective feedback increased their accuracy, meaning that they committed fewer errors when receiving corrective feedback (van Beuningen et al., 2008, p. 291; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, p. 427; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010a, p. 215; Fathman & Whalley, 1990, p. 181). These studies reached the same conclusion even though they were conducted with different samples of participants, different number of participants, and different levels of language proficiency among the participants in the different studies.

(12)

12

receive it are more successful in revising their texts than those who do not receive it. When students in the above mentioned studies first wrote a text and were asked to revise it, then those who had received corrective feedback were more successful in their revision, leading to texts with fewer grammatical errors than the participants in the control group (Ferris & Roberts, 2001, p. 176; Ferris, 2006, p. 86). In addition, despite having different settings in these two studies (which included factors such as different number of participants, and the fact that one study involved revision in class while the other included revision outside of the classroom), the fact remains that these studies reached similar results.

3.2.2 The long term impact of written corrective feedback

Given the time consuming nature of written corrective feedback, it is relevant to know if there is any long term impact. There is evidence which supports the claim that corrective feedback increases accuracy, not only under a short period of time, but also during a longer period of time. In three studies, participants were asked to write several texts, and some of the

participants received corrective feedback, while other participants were enrolled in the control group and did not receive any corrective feedback. The result of the studies were similar to the short term studies, the participants who had received corrective feedback performed better in terms of writing with more grammatical accuracy than the participants in the control groups (Bitchener, 2008, p. 115; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010b, p. 208; Chandler, 2003, p. 290).

Moreover, corrective feedback helps students even when specific error patterns are identified among participants at the start of a study, and worked on during a longer period of time. In a study by Ferris, which lasted for fifteen weeks, in which all of the 30 participants received written corrective feedback, 28 out of the 30 improved their English proficiency in some way (1995, p. 44).

However, there are researchers who argue that engaging in written corrective feedback is not something that is worth the effort it requires. In a study conducted by Kepner, there were 60 college students at intermediate level language proficiency wise who were given error

correction. However, the conclusion of the study was that the error correction was ineffective (1991, p. 310). Furthermore, a study conducted by Hsu and Truscott indicated that students do not maintain the knowledge acquired from revision after one week (2008, p. 299). Based on their study, Hsu and Truscott even claim that the potential language learning produced by written corrective feedback is pseudo learning, meaning that this learning will not last long

(13)

13

(2008, p. 299). In addition, in a meta-analysis of previous studies, Truscott drew the conclusion that learning grammatical structures is a complex process, and that it does not happen at once; therefore it cannot be done through written corrective feedback (Truscott, 1996, p. 342).

3.2.3 Students’ attitudes to corrective feedback

There is little point in providing students with corrective feedback if they do not pay any attention to it. However, according to Chandler, students are positive towards receiving corrective feedback (2003, p. 273). In a study, students were given a questionnaire regarding their opinions on receiving corrective feedback, the results indicated that an absolute majority of the responding students wanted corrective feedback from their teachers (Chandler, 2003, p. 273). In addition, Chandler is not the only researcher to indicate that students are positive to receiving corrective feedback. According to Leki, some students in the study were drowning in feedback, but they still claimed to want more (2006, p. 279). Despite reports of some students drowning in feedback, almost every participant in the study stated that they read the feedback from their teachers carefully (Leki, 2006, p. 279). In Leki’s study, 6 out of 21 students were content with the amount of feedback which they had received, but 11 out of the 21 students reported wanting more feedback when it came to identifying errors (2006, p. 276-277).

It is only logical that different students prefer different types of feedback when it comes to grammatical errors. According to a study conducted by Brandl, students who are more

proficient in a language are more likely to engage in an error correction process, in an attempt to find the source of their error (1995, p. 206). In contrast, students with lower language proficiency showed a tendency to look up the correct answer, and not attempt to find the source of their error (Brandl, 1995, p. 206). Furthermore, Brandl argues that the students with higher proficiency valued being able to solve their error on their own, or with as little help as possible, while the students with a lower proficiency primarily wanted the correct answer (1995, p. 206).

Two reasons for why those with lower proficiency primarily want the correct answer are due to poor cognitive ability and primitive routines (Brandl, 1995, p. 206). Brandl claims that the case of faulty monitoring was more common among the students with lower proficiency than

(14)

14

amongst the students with higher proficiency (1995, p. 206). In addition, another reason why the students with lower proficiency resorted to looking up the correct answer instead of

attempting to understand the source of their error is because that while it is a primitive form of correcting one’s errors, it does the trick (Garner, 1990, p. 519). However, Brandl argues that even if it gets the job done, it is not optimal for increasing one’s language proficiency (1995, p. 207). Furthermore, Brandl states that the students with lower language proficiency might feel helpless in the situation, and therefore react as people do when they react to failure: they neglect the activity of problem solving, which in this case translates into doing what demands the least effort, that is looking up the correct answer (1995, p. 207).

3.3 Scaffolding

Scaffolding is a mechanism used by teachers to support students; however, engaging in scaffolding is not the same as helping a student. According to Gibbons, scaffolding is not a synonym for help, but rather a special type of support for the students which enables them to progress towards new levels of understanding (2002, p. 16), much like formative assessment and written corrective feedback does. Gibbons states that the basic idea of scaffolding is that the activity which the student requires scaffolding to complete today, should not require scaffolding to be completed by the student tomorrow (2002, p. 16). Gibbons compares it to the temporary supporting structures which can be found around buildings being repaired or built. The building is repaired under a shorter period, but when the building can stand on its own the supporting structures are not required anymore (2002, p. 16). Much like with buildings, scaffolding is something which students require at first to understand something, but then, when they have appropriated and transformed the new knowledge, they do not need the scaffolding in order to understand the language item anymore (Gibbons, 2002, p. 16). Much like the formative assessment, scaffolding enables students to understand grammatical structures they did not understand before.

Also similar to formative assessment, scaffolding is an ongoing process. According to Genesee and Hamayan, scaffolding is something which should be present from start to finish of an assignment situation (2016, p. 132). Gibbons refers to scaffolding as something which brings out the potential in students, and allows them to become as proficient in English as they possibly can (2009, p. 158). Furthermore, Gibbons argues that this can be achieved through creating material rich in scaffolding (2009, p. 158).

(15)

15

4. Methods

The empirical evidence for this study is gathered through two different methods,

semi-structured interviews and a survey. The participants consisted of 27 English teachers working at upper secondary schools in South Sweden. The survey was done for the sake of being able to find patterns concerning the habits of English teachers when it comes to written corrective feedback on grammatical errors. Three of the 27 teachers who answered the survey were subsequently selected for follow-up interviews. The interviews were conducted to create a deeper understanding concerning the teachers’ answers to the survey. Moreover, the interviews also enabled me to ask follow up questions if needed. Consequently, this is a mixed methods study, which Dörnyei argues is advantageous for understanding a targeted issue (2007, p. 164). Furthermore, both the survey and the interviews were carried out in accordance with the ethical considerations provided by Vetenskapsrådet.

4.1 Mixed methods

Every method for gathering empirical evidence has its strengths and weaknesses; therefore, combining two methods is advantageous compared to only using one method. A survey is an effective method for acquiring a large amount of empirical evidence; however, it is not a good method for acquiring information regarding why a participant answered as he or she did. The answer for that type of questions is better found through interviewing the person who said it. However, interviews cannot provide the same large amount of information that surveys do as effectively. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the information is of higher quality, even if there is more of it. If combined, surveys and interviews can answer both quantitative and qualitative types of questions. Therefore I used both these methods in my degree project, which resulted in an enriched study (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 164). Dörnyei argues that a

combination of methods is advantageous when examining “complex educational contexts” (2007, p. 164), which is exactly what corrective feedback is since there are research studies pointing in different directions regarding if written corrective feedback is worth engaging in. Another function associated with utilizing more than one method for data collection is the development function, where the result from one method informs the next method (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 165). Dörnyei (2007, p. 171) claims that first conducting a survey, and then selecting a few of the respondents for interviews where their answers are used for further reflection are an advantageous method: it makes it possible to ask participants in any study for further explanation. This is in accordance with what I have done in my degree project. Starting with a

(16)

16

small scale quantitative method followed by a qualitative method allowed me to find tendencies, but also to choose teachers with different answer profiles to interview.

According to Bryman, the incorporation of triangulation, which is what investigating a question from three different perspectives in order to illuminate the issue at hand is called, in any research creates a better understanding of the issue at hand since it has been investigated from more than one aspect (2001, p. 421). Furthermore, Dörnyei has a similar standpoint as he claims that the strength of the study is increased by the fact that the same result is found in more than one source (2007, p. 165).

4.2 Participants

In order to answer my three research questions I needed empirical evidence in the form of opinions from English teachers. I managed to get in contact with English teachers at upper secondary schools through searching online for schools which listed their teachers, and their subjects. From the ten schools that I found which listed their teachers in this way, I collected 88 email addresses. I sent the survey, which can be found in section 9.1, to each of these 88 teachers. Out of the 88 teachers, 27 teachers completed the survey. In the survey, one question was whether the teacher conceded to take part in an interview as a follow-up to the survey. Six out of the 27 teachers checked the box and left their email address. However, the teachers were informed that when checking the box, they would not automatically be selected for interview.

Based on their diverse answers, four out of the six teachers who answered the survey, and checked that they wanted to take part in the interview were contacted for interviews. Out of the four teachers who were contacted for the interview, three replied and were willing to be interviewed. The three teachers who took part in the interviews work at three different schools in two different cities. The first teacher, who will be referred to as teacher A, is 36 years old, and has worked as a teacher at the upper secondary school for 10 years. There are 450 students enrolled at Teacher A’s school, with an average of 27 students in every classroom. The second teacher, who will be referred to as Teacher B, is 45 years old, and has worked as a teacher at the upper secondary school for 15 years. The school Teacher B works at has 2500 students, with an average class size of 30. Lastly, the third teacher, who will be called Teacher C in this degree project, is 40 years old, and has spent 16 years as an English teacher at the

(17)

17

upper secondary school. In addition, the school where teacher C works at is smaller than the other two schools with 250 students in total, and an average of 15 students in every class. Even though the teachers have been assigned letters, on a few occasions they are mentioned by personal pronouns. This is not connected to their gender, but done too enhance readability.

4.3 Survey

As mentioned previously, I chose to use a survey as the quantitative method for several reasons. Kvale states that using surveys allows for larger numbers of participants within any given time span (2007, p. 45). Since my research questions require finding patterns amongst teachers, I needed to have a survey. Having a larger number of participants increases the reliability of the study as it has more empirical evidence behind the conclusions which are made. However, the quality of the survey is not only based on the number of participants, another factor which affects the quality is if the questions which are asked receive the desired, or intended answers.

There are some obstacles associated with surveys too. These can be avoided if one knows the pitfalls. Sending surveys to people via email does not require much effort, only that you have constructed a survey and that you have their email addresses. However, it is far from

guaranteed that all recipients of your survey respond to it (Bryman, 2001, p. 150). When I constructed my survey, I decided not to use open ended questions since it would give me many different answers which would be more difficult to process into a result section. Moreover, I did not want questions where teachers take standpoints since this could possibly also add to difficulties in processing the data afterwards and not add in any meaningful way to answering my research questions. Instead, I used clearly defined questions with a number of predefined alternatives, where the teachers were encouraged to check all boxes which apply. Furthermore, I was careful not to have a survey which included too many questions as I did not want to risk scaring away any potential respondents. This is in accordance to what Bryman argues about surveys not being too cluttered or too long (2001, p. 150).

My survey included three main questions. The first question was what grammatical structures teachers respond to in students’ texts when errors are found in them. This question was relevant to ask since my first research question draws on how teachers offer corrective feedback on errors. In order to be able to answer that research question, I needed to know

(18)

18

what grammatical errors teachers are giving corrective feedback on. Moreover, the second, and the third question involves how teachers mark the grammatical errors, and how much scaffolding the teachers offer the students. Since I wanted to find out in what way the teachers give corrective feedback, and also what their beliefs were about the value of the feedback to students, it was only reasonable to ask the teachers how they physically mark the errors, and how they go about helping their students. Along with the questions, I provided an extensive list of choices. The teachers were encouraged to check all boxes which applied to how they conducted their corrective feedback on grammatical errors. The questions were constructed in a manner which would enable me to fulfill the aim of this degree project, namely if teachers in the upper Secondary School engage in corrective feedback when it comes to correcting grammatical errors in students’ writing.

4.4 Semi structured interviews

In addition to using a survey, I also used a qualitative method. Kvale states that the qualitative approach is well suited if one wants to investigate the underlying reasons for certain opinions and beliefs (2007, p. 38). This is relevant for my degree project since I wanted to ask follow up questions concerning answers in the survey which might be surprising or interesting. For instance, if a respondent reports something in the survey which is not in line with the existing research, then it is valuable to ask the teacher why he or she has that opinion.

The qualitative method used in the degree project is semi structured interviews. According to Dörnyei, semi-structured interviews may offer a deeper understanding of an opinion since the interviewed person can explain their position in various situations (2007, p. 40). In addition, in the setting of the semi structured interviews, subjects can be encouraged to motivate their answers (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 136). Unlike the structured interview, the semi-structured interview does not require the researcher to follow the interview guide strictly. This enables the researcher to ask follow-up questions that are not on the interview guide but are still in reaction to based on the answers given (Bryman, 2001, p. 301). According to Kvale, the researcher must not rush through the questions on the interview guide, but think about

potential follow-up questions before asking the next question from the interview guide (2007, p. 64). When I constructed the interview guide, which can be found in section 9.2, I

constructed a guide without follow-up questions; instead I came up with the follow-up questions during the interviews as their occurred to me. I did not want to prepare the

(19)

follow-19

up questions before the interview as it might have prohibited me from reacting spontaneously to the situation in hand.

Another aspect to consider when performing semi-structured interviews is recording. I decided to record the interviews I held, since it enabled me to focus completely on the

interview. However, I was careful to inform them that they would be anonymous. I also asked the interviewees if they accepted being recorded, which is in accordance with the ethical considerations outlined by Vetenskapsrådet. According to Kvale, by recording the interview, the researcher makes sure that no details are lost, such details might include where the emphasis was, or differences in the tone of the interviewee (2007, p. 93). Moreover, the alternative to recording is taking notes during the interview; however, by doing so, the researcher may not focus as much on the interview, which may interrupt the flow of the interview (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 139; Kvale, 2007, p. 93). According to Dörnyei, recording is necessary, but to record, one has to first ask the interviewee if he or she accepts being recorded (2007, p. 139).

The interview guide consists of four main questions. The first question on the interview guide is related to the teacher’s answers on the survey. It serves as an explanation to why they answered as they did on the survey. For instance, if a teacher has answered that he or she only marks what the student did wrong but nothing else, then a question could be why that was so. The second question of the interview guide relates to teachers’ beliefs on any potential progression in the students based on the teacher’s corrective feedback. To answer the second research question regarding if the corrective feedback is conducive to the students, it was relevant to ask the interviewed teachers if the students actually revised based on their

feedback, and if the students seemed to learn anything from the corrective feedback. The third question aims to investigate the interviewed teachers’ perceptions of the students’ attitudes to receiving feedback. Since there is research which indicates that students are positive towards receiving corrective feedback, it was relevant to ask the teachers if they shared this opinion. The fourth question of the interview guide regards a hypothetical situation where the word grammar is actually mentioned explicitly in the syllabus. The questions concerns whether the teachers in such a case would spend more time on grammar, and whether the teachers would spend more time and energy on corrective feedback on grammatical errors. This question was asked because the present syllabus does not mention the word grammar explicitly, and,

(20)

20

of the interviews, the answers were divided into themes for easier analysis. The four themes include teachers’ reflection on their survey answers, teacher’s responses impact on student proficiency, students’ attitudes to teachers’ response, and the syllabus’s impact on grammar teaching.

4.5 Analysis of the data

According to Dörnyei, acquiring the data is the first half of the work, but after having done that, there is still a need for processing the data, which is the other half of the work (2007, p. 198). Although it may seem less important than gathering the information, processing is still crucial as the raw data is likely to be misunderstood, if it not explained to the readers

(Dörnyei, 2007, p. 199). The first form of processing the data was through the activity of transcription. I roughly transcribed the interviews shortly after interviews were conducted while the interviews were still fresh in my head. In addition, some parts of the interviews were transcribed more carefully than others, as some answers were more relevant to my research questions than others; some of these segments are also included as quotes in section 5. When the interviewees strayed of topic, I did not transcribe these segments as carefully. My transcription did not include pauses, hesitations, non-verbal cues, and false starts.

4.6 Ethical considerations

This degree project follows the guidelines produced by Vetenskapsrådet. The main ideas which are taken into consideration are: the information requirement, the consent requirement, the confidentiality requirement, and the usage requirement (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002, p. 6). The information requirement refers to the importance that the subjects who are contacted in any research should be informed of their part in the study, and what the aim of the study is (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002, p. 7). All the participants in this degree paper were contacted via email, in which the aim of the research was explained, and that I was interested in their views on and practice of corrective feedback.

Moreover, the consent requirement states that the participants in any research decides

themselves if they want to take part in the study or not (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002, p. 9). No one who was contacted for my degree project was forced to participate. Furthermore, even if someone agreed to participate in the survey, no one was forced to take part in an interview,

(21)

21

without suffering any consequences for not completing their part in the study’s empirical evidence.

In addition, the confidentiality requirement means that the information which is given by the participants must be handled in a manner which ensures that unauthorized persons do not gain access to it (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002, p. 12). The results of the survey and the interviews are only used for this degree project, and not given to any third party. Furthermore, when the information is used in the degree project, the names of the teachers and their schools are kept anonymous.

The last requirement regards the usage of the gathered information. The information is only used for the research, and not given to anyone else or used for anything else than scientific reasons (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002, p. 14). The information which I gathered is only used for my degree project, and upon completion of the degree project the information will be destroyed.

(22)

22

5. Results

This section of the degree project presents, describes, and analyzes the data which has been gathered through the survey, and the semi-structured interviews. Moreover, the answers from the three semi structured interviews are summarized, and quotes from the interviews are presented. Furthermore, the results have been categorized into themes. The themes for the results from the surveys are: the grammatical errors teachers report to mark, the manner of the corrective feedback, and types of scaffolding. The themes from the three semi-structured interviews are mentioned previously (see section 4.4).

5.1 Survey

The results from the survey do not agree with all the previous research I discussed in section 3.2.2. Firstly, some research (see section 3.2.2) argues that teachers should not engage in written corrective feedback, however, that is not the case amongst the participants in the survey. Secondly, with all the research pointing at written corrective feedback as something time consuming for teachers (see section 3.2.), it would be reasonable to think that teachers would opt for the least demanding method in terms of time spent on it, but according to the results from the survey, that is not the case.

5.1.1 The grammatical errors the teachers report to mark.

The first question related to what type of errors teachers mark in their students’ texts. There were a total of 22 possible errors for the teachers to choose from, and some of the alternatives were more frequently reported than others. The X axis of the graph represents the alternatives which were available for the teachers to select, and the y axis represents the number of

(23)

23

teachers who selected the different alternatives.

Figure 1, The grammatical errors teachers report to mark

As can be seen in the graph, there were only two alternatives which were marked by less than half of the participants, those two being colon with 10 teachers selecting it (37%), and other with six teachers selecting it (22%). Why these alternatives were less popular is not

investigated in this degree paper, although it could be a relevant area for further research.

5.1.2 The manner of the corrective feedback.

The second question relates to how teachers mark the errors in their students’ texts. In figure 1, in figure 2, there is no alternative that all 27 of the teachers have chosen. Similar to figure

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

What grammatical errors do you mark in your

students’ texts?

(24)

24

1, the X axis represents the alternatives which were available for the teachers to select, and the Y axis represents the number of teachers who selected the different options.

Figure 2, The manner of the corrective feedback

The most popular alternative is I write a comment in the margin, which 24 teachers reported doing (89%). Moreover, the second most popular alternative which 20 teachers reported doing (74%), is I write a longer comment in the text concerning what can be improved. This result is surprising since the two alternatives which takes the most time are the ones who are the most popular amongst the participating teachers.

5.1.3 Types of scaffolding.

The third and last question of the survey regarded whether and in what form scaffolding was offered by the teachers to their students in addition to corrective feedback. Similar to figure 1 and 2, the X and Y axis in figure 3 represents the alternatives, and how common the

alternatives were. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 I mark next to/under/over the error I mark next to/under/over the

error, and give correct answer

I write a comment in the margin

I write a longer comment in the text

concerning what can be improved

Other

How do you mark an error?

(25)

25

Figure 3, Types of scaffolding

The most popular alternative amongst the teachers was I mark what is wrong, and give the student information where the right answer can be found: 17 (63%) teachers reported doing so. Furthermore, the second most popular answer was I mark the error, and present the right answer to the student, which 13 (48%) participants reported doing. Once again it is evident that the teachers in the survey report engaging in time-consuming activities more often than in those activities which require less time; for instance, only six (22%) teachers reported using the alternative Nothing, I only mark the error.

5.2 Semi structured interviews

There are some minor differences in the answers of the three interviewees, even though they agree on many areas. For instance, similarly to a lot of the existing research, the interviewed teachers believe that written corrective feedback increases their students’ proficiency (see for

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

Nothing, I only mark the error

I mark what is wrong, and give the student information where the

right answer can be found

I mark the error, and present the right answer

to the student

Other

How much scaffolding do you offer your

(26)

26

example, Bitchener, 2008). However, the teachers differ regarding their understanding of students’ attitudes to corrective feedback. I have categorized their answers into the four themes mentioned previously (see section 4.4).

5.2.1 The teachers’ reflection on their survey answers Marking of student’ texts

The first question of the survey regards what type of errors teachers mark in students’ texts, and the three teachers elaborated on their answers in slightly different ways. Teacher A reported marking everything, “I am very traditional in my grading; I grab a pencil [and the students’ text] and start marking errors.” Teacher B reported that marking papers is a mechanical process, meaning that he does not think too much about it. “When you are marking essays you mark with the pencil, and if you see an error, then you mark it.” Much like Teachers A and B, Teacher C also reported marking many different types of errors in student texts since, according to Teacher C; it increases the students’ English proficiency.

The teachers’ ways of commenting on students’ texts.

When it comes to how the teachers mark their students’ texts, once again, the teachers differed in their answers. Teacher A claimed to usually mark in the texts, and to give the students the correct answer if the error disrupted the flow of the text too much. Similar to Teacher A, Teacher B reported marking errors by drawing one line under the error, and two lines if it was a severe error (for example, subject verb agreement errors are underlined twice). Unlike Teachers A and B, in addition to marking in the text, Teacher C reported writing comments as that teacher felt some errors were easier explained through comments, while some through marking in the texts.

Furthermore, the interviewees reported the proficiency levels of individual students affected their response. Teacher C reported keeping in mind who the student was while giving the feedback. If it was a weak student, Teacher C started with fundamental grammatical structures since weak students are only able to absorb a limited amount of written corrective feedback. Teacher C also reported that another reason for marking this way was that if a weak student received their text with too many marked errors, then he or she might become discouraged. If it was a strong student, Teacher C reported marking more. Teacher A reported a similar approach. With students inconsistent in their performance but not necessarily with strong

(27)

27

students, Teacher A reported being more thorough when giving the feedback and following-up on it.

Types of scaffolding.

Moreover, types of scaffolding offered vary depending on the teacher and, on the student. Teacher A reported marking errors and providing students with information concerning where the correct answer could be found along with an explanation. Teacher C had reported

engaging in a similar practice; in addition, Teacher C also claimed that having the students find the answer themselves created more learning activities for them than if they were handed the correct answer. However, Teacher B had a slightly different practice of scaffolding. Teacher B teaches three different English courses, and in the first of those three, much scaffolding is provided to the students, while hardly any is provided in the third course. The reason for this is, Teacher B argues, that the students in the third course are proficient enough to figure out solutions to their errors on their own. However, from time to time, even the proficient students enrolled in the third course ask for more guidance. When this happens, Teacher B helps them, of course. Unfortunately, Teacher B reports the lack of time as the reason for not providing abundant scaffolding for everyone.

5.2.2 Teachers responses’ impact on student proficiency

All three teachers reported that they believe their feedback improves their students’ English proficiency. Teacher A and C both argued that their students benefit from corrective feedback they receive. Teacher B agreed, but could not guarantee that it applied to all of the students: “In many of the cases, I am not going to say in every case, but in many of the cases my students benefit from corrective feedback”. Teacher B continued by arguing that some of the students are very attentive to the feedback, and they are motivated to improve. Other students, on the other hand, seem to not care. It is, however, possible that there are too few errors for them to engage in due to their already high proficiency. Teacher B stressed he only teaches students from the Science program, which means that their proficiency level is high from the beginning; therefore, his observations may not apply to other groups of students. He still maintained, however, that his students benefit from the written corrective feedback when they engage in it actively.

(28)

28

mentioning typical errors in student texts. The teachers reported identifying and bringing up typical errors during later lessons. While all three teachers claimed to do so, Teacher C even went so far as to claim that it is the best way for students to learn.

5.2.3 Students’ attitudes to teachers’ response

Based on the data from the three interviews, the teachers do not agree on how they believe their feedback is received by the students. Teachers A and C both reported that their students are positive to their response. Teacher A even argued that the average student is willing to learn through feedback, and that they “beg for it”. However, Teacher B reports that student attitudes vary, and that the students focus more on their grades than the written corrective feedback: “I think that the majority of students only look at the grade they have received for the assignment, and do not really care about the feedback”. Furthermore, when asked if the students appreciate the corrective feedback, Teacher B responded: “Can’t say that they like it; what they like are good grades.” On the other hand, Teacher B reported that grades also increase student motivation to look at the feedback they received.

Furthermore, the teachers also reported that some types of response are more popular than others among students. Both teacher A and C claimed that students in general enjoy getting the correct answer as it does not require as much of an effort for them to get to the correct answer. Moreover, Teacher B also reported that some students are more willing to read and engage with written corrective feedback than others: “Stronger students are more willing to read and reflect on the comments I give them, which is unfortunate since it is the weaker students who would benefit the most from reading and reflecting upon the comments.”

5.2.4. The syllabus’s impact on grammar teaching

The current syllabus for English does not mention the word grammar explicitly. When asked if mentioning grammar explicitly in the syllabus would have caused them to include more grammar in their lessons, all of the three teachers answered in the affirmative. Teacher A reported that there is a lack of knowledge concerning grammatical structures amongst

students, and that more conservative teachers, such as Teacher B in my study, would see such a change as a positive thing. Moreover, Teacher C was even more explicit in her answer: “Yes, if grammar were a part of the syllabus, I would have put more effort on teaching

grammar.” Teacher B reported having gone a step further. Similarly to the other two teachers, Teacher B thought that grammar should be mentioned in the syllabus since students “can’t write well in English without it”. Therefore, Teacher B uses The Common European

(29)

29

Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), as it is more explicit than the syllabus provided by Skolverket when it comes to grammar.

Upon being asked the follow-up question, if including the word grammar explicitly in the syllabus would mean more time spent on corrective feedback to the students, Teacher A reported that in such a case it would have been natural to focus on it more during lessons: “If you have more focus on grammar during the lessons, then it is only natural do have more focus on it when giving feedback.” Also the other two teachers said that they would spend more time on grammar during the lessons, if grammar were included explicitly in the syllabus, but allocating more time to written corrective feedback they deemed as not plausible.

(30)

30

6. Discussion

To fulfill the aim of the study, it was necessary to answer the three research questions. As the aim was to investigate to what extent and in what manner teachers at the upper secondary school present their students with written grammatical feedback, it is necessary to know what grammatical structures are commented on, in what form these comments are made, and what scaffolding is offered to the students.

6.1 The grammatical errors commented on by teachers.

Based on the empirical evidence of this degree paper, it is evident that teachers engage in written corrective feedback, even though some researchers such as Truscott (see section 3.2.3), who claim that it is time consuming and not efficient. Some of the teachers have reported agreeing that written corrective feedback is time consuming, but they still choose to offer it. Therefore, the participants in this degree paper must believe in the potential of written corrective feedback.

Furthermore, during the interviews I had the opportunity to ask the interviewed teachers several follow-up questions; consequently, I asked if they felt the time they spent on giving written corrective feedback was worth it. Two of the three teachers believed that the feedback they offer their students increases the students’ English proficiency. The third teachers

reported that corrective feedback increases student proficiency “in many cases.” As argued in section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, these finding are in accordance with many previous studies, which argue that written corrective feedback increases students’ accuracy though reducing the number of errors they make (see, for example, Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, and van Beuninge et al., 2008). However, while the findings from the interviews support the claims made in those studies, the results contradicts Truscott’s claims that written corrective feedback does not result in increased proficiency. Although the focus of my study was not on ascertaining the impact of corrective feedback, my results show clearly that the teachers in the study firmly believe it to be beneficial to students, otherwise they would simply not have engaged in this time-consuming activity to the same extent.

6.2 Teachers’ methods of commenting on grammatical errors.

According to the empirical evidence in this study, the teachers reported using time-consuming methods when engaging in written corrective feedback. The three teachers who were

(31)

31

interviewed differ in age and experience, as is reported in section 4.2. However, those differences do not matter much when it comes to their choices of method for commenting on grammatical errors. It is actually the most experienced teacher, Teacher B, who reports providing the least scaffolding to the students as a result of having too little time.

Moreover, when it comes to different methods of marking, the teachers interviewed reported that certain methods are more popular amongst different types of students. Two out of three teachers in the interviews believed that their students appreciated getting the correct answer. The reason for this was that it requires less effort from the students. A similar finding has been made in previous research, where some students show a tendency to look up the correct answer, with little ambition for finding the source of their error (see Brandl, 1995 in section 3.2.3). Furthermore, Brandl (see section 3.2.3) argued that one reason for why some students want the correct answer is their lower proficiency; these students do not engage in problem solving as much as high performing students, and they are, therefore, content with finding the correct answer (see section 3.2.3.). One of the teachers in my interviews actually reported something similar. According to that teacher, even though the weaker student would benefit the most from engaging with the written corrective feedback, the stronger student are more willing to do so.

When it comes to the interviewed teachers’ views on student attitudes to corrective feedback in general, their opinions varied. Two of the three teachers reported that their students are positive to their written corrective feedback. This tendency has also been reported in previous research, where students have shown that they want corrective feedback from their teachers (see section 3.2.3, in particular Chandler 2003; Leki, 2006). The third teacher, however, reported that the students pay more attention to the grade than the written corrective feedback.

6.3 Types of scaffolding.

Based on the results from the survey, teachers provide their students with some form of scaffolding more often than not, despite this being time consuming and irrespective of their classes’ size. Moreover, the written corrective feedback could work as an opportunity for the teachers to reach every student in the class, in a way which is difficult during lessons.

However, the teacher with the most students reported giving less scaffolding than the other two teachers, which indicates that rather than being another opportunity to reach every

(32)

32

student, corrective feedback becomes a burden. Furthermore, one of the teachers reported that even though he believes that offering scaffolding to students increases their proficiency, there is simply not enough time for him to do it as much as he would have liked to. However, contrary to this, another teacher reports still prioritizing and finding time to provide written corrective feedback despite his big classes.

In addition, the teachers reported they believed written corrective feedback is not only beneficial to their students, but also to themselves. By engaging in written corrective feedback, the teachers reported being able to identify typical grammatical structures which many students are struggling with. This lead to focused lessons to address the problem. One of the teachers even believed that this was one of the most efficient methods of teaching grammar. Evaluating teaching activities through formative assessment, such as written corrective feedback, has been discussed by Wiliam (2011, p. 46; also see section 3.1). Moreover, the opportunity to follow up on grammatical errors in future lessons is also

supported by research since further clarification is advantageous for the students (see Andrade & Cizek, 2010, p. 111; also see section 3.1).

(33)

33

7. Summary and conclusions

After having reviewed previous research on written corrective feedback, having collected answers from English teachers through the survey, and having conducted focused interviews with three English teachers, I am able to answer the set research questions.

The first research question was When engaging in written corrective feedback, what language

structures do teachers comment on? Based on the answers from the survey, it is obvious that

teachers mark most of the errors they find in student texts. Six of the 22 (27%) possible alternatives in the survey’s first question were marked by all of the participating teachers. When asked in the interviews if they felt the students benefitted from corrective feedback, two out of the three teachers confirmed this, while the third reported that corrective feedback was of benefit to some students. This finding is in accordance with many studies which have found that corrective feedback increases students’ grammatical accuracy (section 3.2.2). However, this contradicts Truscott’s claims who have found written corrective feedback to be ineffective, and a waste of time (see section 3.2.2).

The second research question was In what form do teachers comment on the grammatical

errors made by students? Through the results of the survey, it became obvious that the most

common form of corrective feedback was through writing comments in the margins. Marking the error and providing the correct answer, was a less common option amongst the teachers in the survey. The interviewed teachers also reported on a difference in frequency of using these different methods. Some students were believed to prefer only receiving the correct answer and not caring about how to revise. This finding is consistent with Brandl’s (1995, p. 206) argument that some students prefer only receiving the correct answer (see section 3.2.3). Moreover, two of the three teachers believed their students appreciate corrective feedback, which is consistent with Chandler’s report (2003, p. 273) that students wanted corrective feedback from their teachers (see section 3.2.3).

The third and final research question was What scaffold do teachers offer, if at all, to guide

pupils when correcting their errors? The teachers in the survey were positive towards

offering scaffolding. The most frequently alternative in the survey’s last question was

marking the error, and providing the student with information on where to find information on the correct use. In the interviews, the teachers argued that it was better to provide students with guidance on where to find the correct answer than just give them the correct answer. The

(34)

34

teachers believed that this practice stimulated active learning, which is also consistent with Brandl (1995, p. 206; see section 3.2.3).

7.1 Limitations

There are some factors which might have affected the reliability of the degree paper. Firstly, the number of participants could have been more extensive, both when it comes to the survey and the interviews. Increasing the number of respondents would have been feasible, but it would have been to conduct more interviews within the time span allocated for this study. More data, however, may have contributed to more robust conclusions. Secondly, another factor which may have limited the reliability of the conclusions is that two of the three interviewed teachers work in schools with students from similar socioeconomic

circumstances. On the other hand, the fact that the data from the interviews is mirrored by the data from the survey which exhibits more diversity in terms of the schools’ socio-economic circumstances, may point to this not being the case.Thirdly, another limitation of this study is that my results are based on self-reported measures from the participants, and not direct measures based on samples of feedback collected from the participants.

7.2 Further research

Teaching grammar, offering corrective feedback and scaffolding students’ active learning are arguably important areas for future research. I would recommend future studies to collect representative and extensive data samples to ascertain generalizability of conclusions, to gather innovative examples of best practice and formulate relevant policies.

Since 1970, the syllabus’s focus has shifted away from grammatical knowledge towards communicative skills; however, there are teachers who would like to see grammar mentioned explicitly in the syllabus. When asked during the interviews if inclusion of the word grammar explicitly in the syllabus for English would cause them to include more grammar in their lessons, all of the interviewed teachers reported that it would. Consequently, if including grammar explicitly in the syllabus means more time spent on grammar during lessons, then students are likely to increase their grammatical proficiency.

(35)

35

8. References

Andrade, H., & Cizek, G. (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York [N.Y.]: Routledge.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17, 102–118.

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010a). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language

Writing,19,207–217.

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to

language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193– 214.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in

Education: Principles, policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-73

Brandl, K. (1995). Strong and Weak Students' Preferences for Error Feedback Options and Responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 194-211. doi:10.2307/329619

Bryman, A. (2001). amh s etenska iga metoder (1st ed.). Malmö: Liber AB.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efﬁcacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and ﬂuency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 12, 267–296.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Estling Vannestål, M. (2015). University grammar of English. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB. Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form

versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights

for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (1995). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8(1), 41–62.

Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.),

Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104).

(36)

36

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B.J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.

Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of set tings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517 – 529

Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2016). CLIL in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Greenstein, L. (2010). What Teachers Really Need to Know About Formative Assessment. Alexandria, Va: Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jönsson, A. (2013). Lärande bedömning. (3., [utök.] uppl.) Malmö: Gleerups utbildning.

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).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leki, I. (2006). “You cannot ignore”: L2 graduate students' response to discipline-based written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Authors), Feedback in Second

Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp.

266-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524742.016

Lundahl, B. (2012). Engelsk språkdidaktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB

Kepner, C. (1991). An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. The Modern Language

Journal, 75(3), 305-313. doi:10.2307/328724

Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Skolverket. (2011). L roplan, examensm l och gymnasiegemensamma mnen f r gymnasieskola 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket.

(37)

37

Sauro, S. (2018). CALL (computer-assisted language learning) and feedback. IN J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46, 327-369.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17, 292-305. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003

Tuttle, H. (2013). Formative assessment: Responding to your students (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.

van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal

of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279 – 296

Vetenskapsrådet (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig

forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.