Theoretical Contributions on the Collaborative Methodology for the Grammar Error Treatment of an English Academic Text in a University Context

Keywords: Collaborative methodology, academic text, grammar errors.


This article aims to highlight the characteristics of the collaborative methodology for error correction of L2 students’ texts. The article points out the following components: interaction, dialogue, discussion, scaffolding, ZPD (Zone of proximal development), and positive interdependence; these components also favor the active participation of all members of a group during error correction. In addition, the paper emphasizes the way the collaborative work can activate the metalinguistic component, and can enhance the effect of corrective feedback provided by the teacher to a group.

Author Biographies

Mabel Ortiz-Navarrete, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción

Profesora de inglés como lengua extranjera. Doctora en Lingüística y Magister en Tecnologías de la Información. Sus áreas de interés son el uso de las tecnologías en la enseñanza del inglés y la provisión de feedback correctivo en ambientes virtuales colaborativos. Posee artículos en ambas áreas. Actualmente es académica de la Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile.

Claudio Diaz-Larenas, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción

EFL Teacher, Master in ICT. PhD in Linguistics.


Bartram, M., & Walton, R. (1994). Correction: A positive approach to language mistakes. England: Language Teaching Publications.

Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552-560. doi:

Camps, A., Guasch, O., Milian, M., & Ribas, T. (2000). Metalinguistic activity: The link between writing and learning to write. En A. Camps, & M. Milan (Eds.), Metalinguistic activity in learning to write (pp. 103-124). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Ferreiro, E. (2004). Alfabetización. Teoría y práctica (6ª ed.). México: Siglo XXI.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184. Doi:

García-Heras, A. (2004). Lingüística y enseñanza: El tratamiento de errores en la enseñanza de inglés como lengua extranjera. Docencia e Investigación, 29(14), 49-70.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness 1. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93. doi:

Kozlowski, S., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In S.W.J. Kozlowski &, K. J., Klein (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120. Recuperado de

London, M., & Sessa, V. I. (2006). Group feedback for continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 303-329. doi:

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51. doi:

Ortiz, M. (2013). El uso de estrategias de feedback correctivo y su efecto en la adquisición de aspectos gramaticales durante la escritura colaborativa de ensayos en un entorno virtual wiki (Proyecto de Investigación DIN 01/2013). Concepción, Chile: Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción.

Ortiz, M. (2015). Uso de estrategias de feedback correctivo focalizado en un entorno virtual colaborativo. Impacto y plan de acción (Proyecto de Investigación Fondecyt N° 11150273). Concepción, Chile: Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción.

Smith, B. (2008). External links valid at time of publication methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85-103.

Stein, N. L., Bernas, R. S., & Calicchia, D. (1997). Conflict talk: Understanding and resolving arguments. In T. Givón (Ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives (Typological studies in language, vol. 34, pp. 233-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In C. N. Candlin (Ed.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching and testing (99-118). London: Taylor y Francis.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). Tool and sign in the development of the child. In R. W. Kieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 6: Scientific Legacy, pp. 3-68). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 3-8. Recuperado de

How to Cite
Ortiz-Navarrete, M., & Diaz-Larenas, C. (2017). Theoretical Contributions on the Collaborative Methodology for the Grammar Error Treatment of an English Academic Text in a University Context. Revista Electrónica Educare, 21(2), 1-11.
Essays (Peer Reviewed Section)

Comentarios (ver términos de uso)