The main ideas expressed are that Dramma activities are very useful for Bartolomé school and

students because through this processes Ss can gain self confidence when they are going to
speak in English using their basic level, also in this process students will see their progress
when they express their emotions and feelings on stage

The main limitation of the article is that the authors do not take into account two of the basic
skills which are reading and writing; nevertheless, the writers did keep in mind the interaction
between learners and the development of the speaking and listening skills while they enjoy
learning, students will internalize. A peer feedback would be really useful on this kind of
activity,but there is a limitation for teacher to provide oral and written feedback, given the
amount of students and aspects to take into account.

This article is useful for the research since it shows the practical part of some other kinds of
assessment that is implicitly included on the activity, like peer-feedback and self assessment.
The theory placed in a context also shows the importance of make Ss feel that their works are
recognized, and then they will be proud of their progress and continue improving their
performance.

Corrective Feedback and its Facilitative Role in L2 Development

CF attempts to deal with linguistic errors. It constitutes an attempt to supply negative evidence (Lyster, 1998).
Lightbown and Spada (1999) define CF as follows: “Any indication to the learners that their use of the target language
is incorrect; this includes various responses that the learners
108 Akbarzadeh, Saeidi & Chehreh/The effects of …
receive” (pp. 171-172). According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), major kinds of CF include:1) Explicit correction (the
teacher explicitly provides the correct form), 2) Recasts (the teacher implicitly reformulates the student’s error), 3)
Clarification requests (showing the students that their utterance has been misunderstood by the teacher and they
should reformulate their utterance), 4) Metalinguistic feedback (showing that there is an error somewhere using
implicit comments, information, or questions related to the
well-formedness of the student’s utterance), 5) Elicitation (techniques that teachers use to elicit the correct form from
the students such as: a) teachers elicit completion of their own utterance (e.g., ‘it’s a. . .’), b) teachers use questions
to elicit correct forms (e.g., ‘how do we say X in Farsi?’), c) sometimes teachers ask students to reformulate their
utterance), and 6) Repetition (the teacher repeats the student’s utterance that contains error(s)).

Interactive Feedback (IF) and Language Learning

Vygotskian sociocultural theory of L2 learning refers to the role of teacher-student interaction and collaboration in
solving linguistic problems (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). According to Ellis (1994), with the focus on process in the path of
language acquisition, it is believed that language emerges through interaction and negotiation of meaning. He
defined interaction as when the participants of equal status sharing similar needs make an effort to understand each
other. In the same vein, since 1990s, substantial attention has been paid to IF in SLA research (e.g., Long, 1996,
2007; Lyster, 2004; Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003; Nassaji, 2007). It is extensively believed that IF leads to L2
development (Long, 1996; Lyster, 2004; Swain, 1985). For example, Tsang (2004) maintained that most grammatical
repairs are the result of negotiation and that negotiation facilitates grammatical repairs. As the results of the meta-
analysis of 28 interaction studies (including 20 oral CF studies) reported by Mackey and Goo(as cited in Lyster &
Saito, 2010b) revealed, providing CF in L2 interaction is very effective.
Long (as cited in Tuan & Nhu, 2010) stated that in order for language acquisition to take place, learners should be
provided with enough opportunities to negotiate meaning to avoid a communicative breakdown. Long further
mentioned that using negotiation, learners receive feedback from interlocutors on their language output in the forms
of conversational adjustments; such feedback serves as an indication for learners to modify their production.
Accordingly, as Fotos and Nassaji (2007) stated, the role of negotiation and its impacts on the development of
interlanguage have received noticeable theoretical attention in the field of SLA.
In a study on the effects of negotiated interaction on EFL learners’ spoken production, Li (2012), focusing on the
teacher-learner interaction in a story-telling task, found that interaction had a facilitating role in language development
for learners and the quantitative analysis of the data showed that the learners’ language accuracy and fluency
improved considerably.

Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 2(2), (July, 2014) 105-126 109
Investigating the effectiveness of negotiation on learners’ written errors, Nassaji (2007) concluded that negotiated
feedback was more successful than non-negotiated feedback in assisting students to recognize and correct their L2
writing errors.
(1994), with the focus on process in the path of language acquisition, it is believed that language emerges through
interaction and negotiation of meaning. He defined interaction as when the participants of equal status sharing similar
needs make an effort to understand each other. In the same vein, since 1990s, substantial attention has been paid to
IF in SLA research (e.g., Long, 1996, 2007; Lyster, 2004; Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003; Nassaji, 2007). It is
extensively believed that IF leads to L2 development (Long, 1996; Lyster, 2004; Swain, 1985). For example, Tsang
(2004) maintained that most grammatical repairs are the result of negotiation and that negotiation facilitates
grammatical repairs. As the results of the meta-analysis of 28 interaction studies (including 20 oral CF studies)
reported by Mackey and Goo (as cited in Lyster & Saito, 2010b) revealed, providing CF in L2 interaction is very
effective.

He further concluded that unidirectional feedback was comparatively less effective than negotiated feedback in
promoting L2 accuracy in learners’ written performance, and that the effectiveness of feedback increased when the
learners participated and became engaged in the feedback process.

It is agreed that IF (provided by either a peer or the tutor), including negotiation and recasts, can promote L2 writing
skill development (Lynch, as cited in Motallebzadeh & Amirabadi, 2011). Chuang (2009) noted that student-student
interaction and student-teacher conference had a significant effect on improving learners’ writing accuracy and could
facilitate language learning.

One of the effective means of implementing IF in the classroom is conferencing. As Ferris (2002) mentioned,
although no considerable empirical studies have compared which feedback mode (written or oral) works
better, various writing teachers consider one-on-one teacher-student conferences to be more successful
than written CF because they provide opportunities for students to ask questions and for teachers to explain
and teach once corrections are made clear. One study by Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005)
contrasted written feedback with dual-mode written and individual conferencing for grammatical accuracy on
writing. They discovered that the combination of written and face-to-face conference feedback was
considerably more successful than mere written comments in enhancing the accuracy of simple past tense
and definite article.

…..1. Roya Akbarzadeh a, Mahnaz Saeidi a, *, Mahtaj Chehreh a

(Available online: 1 July 2014). The effect of oral interactive
 feedback on the accuracy and complexity of EFL learners’
writing performance: Uptake and retention
a Islamic Azad University – Tabriz Branch, Iran

2. The authors examine the terms Corrective feedback and

Interactive feedback, and it also mention an Iranian investigation
of language teaching research.

3. The main ideas expressed are that corrective feedback is

focused on linguistic errors while interactive feedback is related
to a negotiation of meanings (between students or in an
interaction teacher-student) as is said in the first paragraph of
Interactive Feedback (IF) and Language Learning: “ According to Ellis
(1994), with the focus on process in the path of language acquisition, it is believed that language
Moreover, it is said that
emerges “through interaction and negotiation of meaning.

the importance to keep a fluently interaction in classroom

environments is useful for communication to take place.

4. And 5.

Although the author provide a strong theoretical material but it has

nor enough neither clear examples of the use of corrective and
interactive feedback, the article will be useful to our
investigation because it involves the teachers’ and learners’
procedures into the feedback sessions with the its importance
and in that way we have gotten some new ideas and bases to
start writing.

Juan David
Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers

1. Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013, September 3). Journal of
second language writing. Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers, 22,
307–329. Retrieved from http:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1060374312000811
 2. The researchers looked for discovering how the features of written corrective
feedback such as focused, unfocused, direct, indirect, explicit and unlabeled CF
can contribute improvements to students of 1.5 generation (students of ESL who
their native language are different), taking into account their qualitative aspects
and their ability to self-monitoring during and after they wrote an essay in a
period of sixteen weeks divided into four section: Diagnosis, Midterm 1, Midterm
2 and Final examination.
3. Although initially the participants in the project were fourteen students who spoke
different languages, having as a aim to learn English as a target language, ten of
them achieved successfully the objective established in the proposal;
additionally, the main ideas expressed in the research article are that 1.5
generation learners can learn how to write in a suitable way by self- correction
and reflection about the errors they make while and after writing, by participating
in three revision sections and interviews, considering their feelings, attitudes,
responses to the questions, and self-editing strategies during timed writing task.
4. The authors provide a strong theoretical perspective about how to conduct
students from different cultures, languages and believes through the
enhancement of writing skills by bearing in mind the WCF features, and the
learners’ qualitative aspects.
5. As a result, the article is very useful for those teachers who their principal
interests are to teach writing in an ESL/EFL context to students who speak
different languages in a specific classroom, allowing learners to apply strategies
with the purpose that they can use their own ability to correct themselves based
on the feedback given by the teacher.

Natalia:
1- Maroof,N., Yamath,H., Li Li, K. (2011,n.d.) Role of Teacher, Peer and
Teacher-Peer Feedback in Enhancing ESL Students’ writing. World
Applied Sciences Journal, 15, 29-35.ISSN 1818-4952.
2- This article examines the advantages and the suitability of using peer
feedback, teacher feedback or both of them in the process of improving
ESL Students’ writing skills.
3- The authors’ research focuses on establish which method of feedback is
more effective in the process of improving ESl learners’ writing skills in
Malaysia where English is the second language. Throughout the text it is
evidenced a clear preference for the feedback provided by the teacher
rather than the one provided by the students themselves, due to the fact
that teachers are “figure of authority that guaranteed quality” and peer-
feedback usually focuses on linguistic errors, the comments don’t facilitate
revision and students have problem deciding the validity of the papers. So
at the end of the research students prefer teacher’s feedback rather than
the one provided for the students, but even more than the teacher’s one
students seemed to be convinced that a combination of both methods is
the most effective way to improve their writing.
4y 5- This article is relevant for my research to certain point since the
authors offer different perspectives of the roles when providing feedback
and support their statements with clear and well structured arguments. But
there is limitation of the article when they focus on how to support that a
combination method is better, rather than focus of the problem of the roles
and go deeper inside of the problem.

Main ideas:
-Comparisons between L1 and L2 writers.
-Students are still unable to acquire or comprehend the language even
after eleven years of learning the language at both the primary and
secondary school levels.
-E. is a Second lg in Malaysia.
-They do not produce multiple drafts of their essays because of time
constraints, the large number of students in a classroom, absence of
practice of process writing and students’ lack of motivation.
-Feedback= effectiveness
-language-specific errors and problems.
-the effectiveness of teacher feedback is fairly established in process
writing.
-A study of secondary school L2 writers showed that the students
described the teacher as a “figure of authority that guaranteed quality” [3].
In contrast to teacher feedback, peer feedback is a learning strategy in
which a student evaluates another student's work via feedback.
-There are three main problems of peer feedback: (1) Students tend to
respond to surface errors instead of semantic or textual one; (2) Students
give advice that often does not facilitate revision; and (3) Students have
difficulty deciding whether their peer's feedback is valid.
-although peer feedback offers many ways to improve students' writing,its
effectiveness is still highly questionable.
-They seemed to believe that their teachers are able to help them to
improve their ESL writing. At the same time, they find peers helpful in
general for their peers are able to give some input in enhancing their
writing. They believe that learning to write essays using this combined
method is beneficial because they can get different opinions from different
people. All the students perceived some form of improvement in their
writing with the combination approach. The students seemed to be
convinced that a combination of both methods is the most

Carolina
Written Corrective Feedback: Practitioners’ Perspectives
1. Evans,N.,Hartshorn,J.,Tuioti,E (2010,october 21)Written corrective feedback
practitioner's perspectives.International journal of English studies.IJES, 10 (2),
2010, pp. 47-7
2. In this article the authors examine corrective feedback as a long-standing
educational practice that can arguably be linked to almost everything we learn
(Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, & Wolfersberger, 2010; Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
on the other hand the value of such feedback in second language (L2) writing
has been debated in the literature for several decades.
3. In this article the authors research focuses on a study that ask two fundamental
research questions (a) to what extent do current L2 writing teachers provide
WCF?(Writing corrective feedback) and (b) what determines whether or not
practitioners to provide WCF?. In order to clarify what L2 writing teachers are
doing with WCF in their classes and why, the authors determined to seek input
 from a broad range of English language teachers by means of an online survey
that could be distributed globally to L2 writing teachers. With the research
questions as guides like (1) “Typically, do you provide your writing students with
at least some error correction?” what percentage gets error corrected?” and so
on.
4. According to the answers this research supports that teachers in their study
“sincerely want their students’ writing to improve to its fullest potential” and they
want the time and effort they spend on providing feedback “for student writers to
be well spent”

5. Despite the useful findings generated by this study, there are some Inconsistent
and contradictory opinions about WCF because Some teachers have stepped
forward in strong support of WCF and others Others have argued against it for
various reasons. some teachers believe the WCF they give is effective and
others are doubtful of such.

Different perspectives of writing corrective feedback

1. The topics are related due to the fact that all of them deal with
aspects that focus on the process of corrective feedback in writing.

2. Although the topics are similar in some aspects the purposes that
each article covers it’s different for example the first article has a
focus on corrective feedback for individual L2 writers the second
article has a focus on peer and teacher feedback, the third one has a
focus on practitioners perspectives at the time of correcting feedback
and the last one is just about written corrective feedback.

3. The articles are guide to different audiences like L2 writers, teachers,

practitioners but all of them are focus on writing writing corrective
feedback.
4. The methods of analysis of the different articles