Pixel International Conferences

Swedish students’ proficiency in written production in a third language ​​has proven to be insufficient (European Commission 2012) also evident in our study. Despite its potential for language learning (e.g. Manchón 2011), writing tends to be a neglected skill in foreign language classrooms. Students are given few opportunities to produce texts (Knospe 2017). Therefore, students often feel insecure and lack strategies for text production in their third language. There are few in-depth studies of students’ ability to reflect on and process their own texts. In this study, we focus on process writing, by addressing the following questions: What impact does work with written production have on students’ attitudes to text production? What effect does direct corrective feedback from fellow students has on writing accuracy? (e.g. Ekanayaka & Ellis 2020). Texts were collected from 20 Swedish learners of German in one upper secondary school (course 4) in the southern part of Sweden who had been working with process writing during three months. The students were also asked to fill in one questionnaire on background information and one regarding their attitudes to the work with process writing. Our study contributes with information on writing practices in the foreign language classroom and the effect direct corrective feedback from fellow students has on writing accuracy. Texts were produced and rewritten after group feedback at three times. Contrary to results in earlier research and our expectations, our study shows that the group feedback the students received on their texts only had a minor influence on their writing accuracy. Finally, we contribute with implications concerning research design and teaching practices, focusing on task design in writing activities in the language classroom.

Keywords: L3 German, peer feedback, written production, process-oriented writing, writing accuracy, language awareness.

• Ekanayaka, W. & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? I: System 94, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341" title="Persistent link using digital object identifier">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341
• European Commission (2012). Europeans and their languages. Special Eurobarometer 386. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf (2020.01.12)
• Knospe, Yvonne (2017), Writing in a Third Language. A Study of Upper Secondary Students’ Texts, Writing Processes and Metakognition. Umeå: Umeå Studies in Language and Literature 36.
• Manchón, R. (2011), Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. I: R. Manchón (red), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 61–84.