University of Reading

MA Feedback Sheet

Module code LSMDSL Module title Second Language Learning
Principles
Student

3112DS1
Maria do
Carmo
Programme MAELT; MAAL
Assignment
task
Date submitted 21 June
2013
Marked by Parvaneh
Tavakoli
Grade 53%
THIS MARK IS PROVISIONAL AND IS SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT IN
EITHER DIRECTION BY THE EXAMINERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
UNIVERSITYS ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

!"#$%"#& ()" $*#+ $&+,
1 Demonstration of a range of relevant reading and understanding of issues raised in the
Module
2 Ability to evaluate reading and relate it to your experiences as an L2 teacher and/or
learner or to practical issues in L2 teaching
3 Depth and breadth of discussion of the chosen topic
4 Coherence of assignment, especially overall organisation and division into sections
and paragraphs
5 Presentation, especially correctness of referencing and bibliography, and quality of
writing

Comments (Numbers refer to the criteria above)

1. Although a number of sources have been consulted, these are mainly textbooks of a couple
of decades ago. There is very little evidence in the essay to suggest that research articles and
more up-to-date resources have been used. In certain parts of the essay, a reasonable
understanding of some key concepts of language learning has been demonstrated. However,
in a number of places in the essay, the limited discussion you have provided makes it difficult
to evaluate understanding of these issues. See examples of this kind below in the specific
points section.


2. It is good to see that the different readings come in to discuss the key issues. You have
shown an ability to integrate the materials from different sources to support your discussions.
The main problem is that many of these sources are not listed in the bibliography. You have
clearly discussed why research is useful for language teaching, and have further explained
what Brazilian students need to have in their language teaching programmes. However, the
essay fails to discuss the ways in which theoretical considerations of Input and Output
Hypotheses can benefit language teaching and learning in your context.


3. A narrowed-down focus can help develop in-depth analysis and engaging discussions.
Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis each need a long essay to discuss their different
aspects carefully and thoroughly.


4. The essay is conceptually coherent, but the organisation of the content must be improved
by avoiding writing short paragraphs and by a more effective grouping of the content into
same sections. Having a more transparent structure will enhance the communication of your
message with the readers. In certain parts of the essay, e.g. pages 5 and 6 the loose structure
of the text makes it difficult to see the purpose of the essay.


5. Although the quality of the writing in the essay is generally good, it will benefit from a
thorough proofreading (see specific points below). Conventions of referencing are not
followed carefully and many of the in-text citations do not appear on the reference list.
Another main problem in the referencing system of the essay is the recurrent use of
secondary citations especially where the primary texts are easily available. The title page and
table of contents are both missing.

Specific comments

Page 1: This is a nice and thought provoking introduction. I wish later on in the essay you
had made a better use of the concept and linked it more actively with your discussions of
input and output.
Par.8 and elsewhere in the essay: Who is we?
Par. 8: This is a very confusing point. The underpinning principle of Input Hypothesis is how
to promote language acquisition. Are you really narrowing it down?
Par. 11, Figure 1: What is this figure doing here? I dont know how this is going to support
your discussion.
Par. 15: What are you going to discuss in the following paragraphs? Why are you going to do
so? What do you want to achieve?
Par. 29: examples of a few in-text references that are not available on the list: Krashen, 1994;
Krashen, 1998; Young, 1990. The same paragraph is a good example of the need for
proofreading: krashen, young.
Page 7 is full of short paragraphs that interrupt the flow of communication. This page does
not present a coherent discussion of the topic either.
Page 8 is another example of text being poorly structured.
Par. 32: references for the citations in the quotation marks are missing.
Par. 34: the first sentence is ambiguous. What do you mean?


Overall Comments:
The essay is a mixed bag of strength and weaknesses. You have tried to discuss how teachers
may benefit from SLA research findings especially the findings of Input and Output
Hypotheses. In doing so, you have read a number of books, provided some interesting
discussions and raised concerns about the development of L2 proficiency in L2 learners.
However, some of the discussions are poorly structured and do not provide an in-depth
evaluation of these two theories of SLA. The way the text has been organised has had a
negative effect in conveying the message of the essay. More importantly, the essay does not
eventually show how teachers can learn from these theories or how these theories can be
translated into language teaching practices.