Po a Lingua um 27, ene o 2017 141-153
E alua ion o he W i en Compe ence o
P e-se ice Teache s o F ench as a Fo eign
Language in Belgium
A iane uy eLae
Ghen Uni e si y, Belgium
Recei ed: 1 Ma ch 2016 / Accep ed: 30 Sep embe 2016
ISSN: 1697-7467
ABSTRACT: The main objec i e o his s udy was o desc ibe F ench as a o eign language
(FFL) p o iciency in p e-se ice FFL eache s. This s udy was pe o med wi h all na i e Bel-
gian Du ch pos g adua e s uden s (n=40) cou sing an Academic Teache Educa ion P og am
(Ghen , Belgium) du ing he academic yea s 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Analyses e ealed
in e es ing indings on hei FFL le el and di e en e o ypes in hei w i en p oduc ions.
In conclusion, he p esence o w i ing e o s in FFL in p e-se ice eache s sugges s he need
o design no el eaching s a egies o imp o e hei o e all language p o iciency and w i ing
skills du ing hei deg ee s udies.
Keywo ds: F ench as a o eign language; w i ing e o s; p e-se ice eache s; ©DIALANG;
Co puSc ip
E aluación de la compe encia esc i a de p o eso es en o mación de ancés como len-
gua ex anje a en Bélgica
RESUMEN: El obje i o p incipal de es e es udio ue desc ibi las compe encias en ancés
como lengua ex anje a (FLE) en u u os p o eso es de FLE. Es e es udio se ealizó con
odos los es udian es nee landó onos (n=40) que cu saban el Más e uni e si a io en p o-
eso ado de educación secunda ia obliga o ia y bachille a o (Gan e, Bélgica) du an e 2013-
2014 y 2014-2015. Los análisis e ela on esul ados in e esan es sob e su ni el en FLE
y di e en es ipos de e o es en sus p oducciones esc i as. En conclusión, la p esencia de
e o es esc i os en FLE en p o eso es en o mación sugie e la necesidad de diseña nue as
es a egias didác icas pa a mejo a sus compe encias esc i as du an e sus es udios de g ado.
Palab as cla e: F ancés como lengua ex anje a; e o es esc i os; p o eso es en o mación;
©DIALANG; Co puSc ip
1. In oduc Ion
In he acquisi ion o F ench as a o eign language (FFL), i is a challenge o achie e a
nea -na i e le el. This is ce ainly impo an in he case o u u e FFL eache s, esponsible
o ans e hei knowledge o enable seconda y, unde g adua e and/o pos g adua e s uden s
o mas e i (Myhill, Jones & Wa son, 2013). In o de o each any subjec e ec i ely, i is
gene ally accep ed ha an adequa e deg ee o subjec knowledge is equi ed (Mad id, 2004).
In addi ion, wi hin he Eu opean Union i is eache s’ linguis ic p o iciency ha o en appea s
Po a Lingua um Nº 27, ene o 2017
142
o be he ocus o mos a en ion (T ujillo & Mad id, 2001; Piza o, 2013). Fu he mo e,
esea ch sugges ed ha high p o iciency is essen ial o each s uden s o become linguis ically
compe en hemsel es (Woodga e-Jones, 2008). In his con ex , s uden s en olled in a Mas e
in F ench philology o F ench ansla ion and in e p e a ion s udies should each o a C1
le el o FFL based on Common Eu opean F amewo k o Re e ence’s (CEFR) scales a he
end o hei uni e si y s udies. Howe e , a p esen i is s ill unknown i FFL p e-se ice
eache s en olled in he Academic Teache Educa ion P og am (ATEP) a Ghen Uni e si y
(Belgium) ha e success ully acqui ed his equi ed le el. In his sense, his s udy in ends
o shed some ligh on his ques ion.
2. heo e Ical amewo k
2.1. Language p o iciency assessmen
In gene al, he CEFR desc ibes o eign language p o iciency a six le els, A1 and A2
(basic use ), B1 and B2 (independen use ), and C1 and C2 (p o icien use ). In his ega d,
o eign language (FL) le el can be e alua ed by o icial es s a au ho ized cen e s (e.g.
Alliance F ançaise) o h ough online ools and es s. In his sense, ©DIALANG, an online
es , allows o assess language p o iciency in 14 di e en Eu opean languages. I has been
de eloped by mo e han 20 Eu opean ins i u ions and is based on he Council o Eu ope’s
CEFR, which has become es ablished h oughou Eu ope as he mos widely ecognized
ame o e e ence in he ield o language lea ning (Zhang & Thompson, 2004; Alde son
& Huh a, 2005). In addi ion, i was success ully used o FL le el assessmen in esea ch
(Co ina Pé ez, 2011; Lundell & Lindq is , 2014b).
2.2. W i ing skills and e o s
In gene al, w i ing has been a use ul ool o assess lea ne s’ FL p o iciency, pa icula ly
in academic con ex s (Bene en o & S o ch, 2011; Ma ínez, 2015). In w i ing assignmen s,
s uden s a e expec ed o demons a e hei skills and lea ne s pe cei ed ha an ex ensi e
ocabula y is c ucial o hei academic w i ing (Leki & Ca son, 1994). Addi ionally, FL
w i ing is a complex ac i i y and is conside ed one o he mos di icul skills, due o he
combina ion o g amma , ocabula y and discou se o ganiza ion (Llach, 2007; Yu, 2010).
Cu en ly, uni e si y p og ams dedica e mo e impo ance o academic w i ing, in eg a ing
i mo e in ensi ely and explici ly in he cu iculum (Hade mann & Demeulenae e, 2013).
Cu iously, despi e he clea impo ance o w i ing skills in academic con ex s, mos o he
s udies in FFL a e mainly ocused on di e en aspec s o g amma (Dewaele & Vé onique,
2000; Bene en o & S o ch, 2011). In addi ion, di e ences in p o iciency be ween na i e
speake s and e y ad anced FL lea ne s a e demons a ed. In ac , only a mino i y was
capable o acqui e a lexical le el o na i e speake s (Fo sbe g & Ba ning, 2010). Simila -
ly, a longi udinal s udy, ocused on he imp o emen o w i ing skills o seconda y school
lea ne s o FFL, showed imp o emen s a he discou se le el and in linguis ic complexi y.
Howe e , he e we e no signi ican imp o emen s in accu acy and ce ain equen e o s
pe sis ed (Bene en o & S o ch, 2011). In addi ion, i was obse ed ha s uden s s ill seem
o s uggle wi h aul less academic w i ing (O’Sulli an & Chambe s, 2006).
A iAne uy elAe E alua ion o he W i en Compe ence o P e-se ice...
143
Conce ning w i ing e o s, he e a e no uni ied guidelines o hei desc ip ion o as-
sessmen . The e o e, linguis s ha e de ised hei own axonomies o e o desc ip ion. Some
esea che s used a axonomy based on linguis ic ca ego ies (Ellis, 1994). A mo e ecen and
ac ualized classi ica ion o e o s was desc ibed which was no limi ed o g amma ical ele-
men s bu also included lexical and s ylis ic issues (James, 2013). James’ classi ica ion se ed
as guide o he elabo a ion o he online co ec ion ool called Co puSc ip , de eloped by
and cu en ly used a Ghen Uni e si y (Belgium) (Hade mann & Demeulenae e, 2013). This
online co ec ion ool dis inguishes h ee main ca ego ies o e o s (lexical, g amma ical and
discu si e) and wo o he ca ego ies (spelling mis akes and con en e o s).
3. aIms o he s udy
The s udies men ioned abo e demons a ed ha w i ing skills in FL ep esen a g ea
challenge o ad anced lea ne s and e en o u u e FL eache s, and i plays a key ole
in hei p o essional pe o mance. In his ega d, he p esen s udy was designed based on
he impo ance o he acquisi ion o a high FL le el in an academic con ex and he pe sis-
ence o w i ing e o s a di e en academic le els. In his con ex , he FFL le el and he
equency and ypes o w i en e o s made by na i e Belgian Du ch p e-se ice eache s o
FFL a e s ill unknown. In Belgium, all g adua ed u u e FL eache s mus comple e hei
o ma ion by ollowing a speci ic pos g adua e ATEP. In his sense, his p og am o e s a
unique oppo uni y o e alua e he FL le el and w i ing skills o he u u e FFL eache s. I
is hypo hesized ha hese pos g adua e s uden s each a high o close o a na i e le el o
FFL. Howe e , p obably hey could s ill commi e o s in hei w i en composi ions which
could a ec hei p o essional ca ee . Fo his eason, he aim o his s udy was o de e mine
he le el o FFL and o desc ibe quali a i ely and quan i a i ely he ypes and equency o
w i en e o s commi ed by hese pos g adua e s uden s.
4. ma e Ial and me hods
4.1. Pa icipan s
This s udy was pe o med wi h all he p e-se ice eache s (n=40) en olled in he oblig-
a o y ATEP wi h a specializa ion in FFL a Ghen Uni e si y (Belgium) du ing he academic
yea s 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. In his popula ion o s uden s, 40 we e na i e Belgian Du ch
speake s, which ep esen ed he expe imen al popula ion (EP). EP was composed by 9 male
and 31 emale s uden s. In addi ion, he majo i y o he s uden s had acqui ed a Mas e in
F ench philology (n=32, PHILG oup and he o he s in F ench ansla ion and in e p e a ion
s udies (n=8, TIG oup). No e ha gende in o ma ion was only supplemen a y and i was
no used as a iable o o u he analyses in his s udy.
4.2. FFL le el assessmen
Du ing he i s s age o his s udy, s uden s we e asked o sel -assess hei FFL le el.
In o de o ob ain an objec i e and comple e assessmen o he FFL skills, hey pe o med
Po a Lingua um Nº 27, ene o 2017
144
he compu e -based and deli e ed ia he In e ne ©DIALANG es (Zhang & Thompson,
2004) o F ench in an in o ma ics class oom a Ghen Uni e si y. Be o e s a ing he ac ual
language skills es , hey pe o med a ocabula y size placemen es , in which a collec ion
o wo ds – eal and in en ed e bs– a e p esen ed, and a sel -assessmen ques ionnai e in
o de o a e hei own language abili ies (Ockey, 2009). I was sco ed be ween 0-1000 poin s
(Zhang & Thompson, 2004). Nex , lis ening, w i ing, eading, g amma and ocabula y skills
we e objec i ely e alua ed and sco ed on he CEFR scales. These alues we e hen analyzed
o know he o e all language p o iciency in FFL in each s uden . In addi ion, ©DIALANG
does no gi e a global sco e, bu sco es ange om A1-C2 ( o al o six le els) in each skill.
In his sense, o ob ain a nume ic alue co esponding he global FFL le el o each pa ic-
ipan , a numbe om 1-6 was assigned o each le el (1=A1, 2=A2 ill 6=C2 espec i ely).
4.3. W i ing assignmen
Du ing he second s age o he s udy, in o de o assess he w i ing skills, s uden s we e
asked o pe o m a w i ing assignmen in F ench which was conduc ed in hei own class oom
unde hei eache ’s and he esea che ’s supe ision. I consis ed o a sho essay which
should include a b ie in oduc ion and a clea conclusion (375-400 wo ds) ela ing o an
aspec o FFL and i s eaching. The i le o he essay gi en o he s uden s was: “L’impo -
ance de l’enseignemen du ançais langue é angè e dans une Eu ope mul ilingue.” This
gene al opic was selec ed hanks o i s di ec ela ion o he s uden ’s backg ound. Thus,
speci ic knowledge on he subjec has played no ole. S uden s we e gi en an in oduc ion o
10 minu es ou lining wha hey had o do; hey we e allowed up o 60 minu es o comple e
his ask, o e ise hei handw i en ex and make any changes hey wished. Addi ionally,
s uden s could no make use o any help sou ce (dic iona y o g amma , no we e hey
allowed o ask he eache o esea che o help).
4.4. W i ing e o analysis
In he hi d s age o his s udy, all essays we e ea ed in di e en phases.
In he i s phase, in o de o acili a e he w i ing e o analysis, he 40 handw i en essays
we e collec ed and ansc ibed li e ally in o wo d iles using Mic oso O ice Wo d 2007.
In he second phase, in o de o pe o m an e icien , uni o m and objec i e w i ing
e o analysis, all essays we e uploaded o he online co ec ion ool Co puSc ip . This ool
has been de eloped by Ghen Uni e si y because he e was a g owing need o a mo e e -
icien , uni o m and, hence, objec i e co ec ion me hod o w i en assignmen s (Hade mann
& Demeulenae e, 2013). Th ee main ca ego ies o e o s a e dis inguished: lexical, g amma -
ical and discu si e e o s. Two o he ca ego ies, spelling mis akes and con en e o s, we e
also included. In addi ion, he ollowing sub ypes o e o s we e conside ed in he h ee
main ca ego ies: omission, misselec ion, o e inclusion and o de (James, 2013). Omission
is conside ed as he absence o an i em ha should appea in a well- o med sen ence (e.g.
g amma ical omission: *Dans un p emie emps nous nous in é essons à les sui es posi i es
pou ini pa (…).); misselec ion is he use o he w ong o m o he mo pheme o s uc u e
(e.g. lexical misselec ion: *Ap ès une jou née occupée, (…), ça nous ai du bien (...) pou
se elaxe .); o e inclusion is de ined as he p esence o an i em ha should no appea in a
A iAne uy elAe E alua ion o he W i en Compe ence o P e-se ice...
145
well- o med sen ence (e.g. g amma ical o e inclusion: *Le con ac physique a ec un li e,
(…), es un p emiè e aspec posi i .); and inally o de is ega ded as he inco ec placemen
o a mo pheme in an u e ance (e.g. g amma ical o de : *D’ailleu s, ne pas ou le monde joui
d’un o dina eu .). Thus, in his s udy, a o al o 14 ypes o w i en e o s we e e alua ed.
In he hi d phase o he analysis, in o de o e alua e he equency and ypes o e -
o s, all he ansc ibed w i en composi ions we e ead and sc u inized one by one. Fi s ,
he o al numbe o wo ds w i en in each essay has been calcula ed. Fu he mo e, e o s
we e iden i ied, selec ed and classi ied in o he main ca ego ies and sub ypes as desc ibed
abo e, and hen coun ed up. Nex , he numbe o o al e o s and he numbe o e o s o
each ca ego y and sub ype was w i en down in Excel o each s uden . Finally, he mean
equency o each e o ype was calcula ed. A his s age, no co ec ion o eedback was
p o ided. Ins ead, he s uden s we e in o med ha hey would ecei e a pe sonal eedback
on hei essay and ha hey would ha e he oppo uni y o imp o e hei assignmen .
4.5. Quan i a i e and s a is ical analyses
In his s udy, all da a om he FFL le el analysis (©DIALANG) and he w i ing e o
analysis we e collec ed and subjec ed o he Shapi o-Wilk es o no mali y by using he
so wa e SPSS 15.0. Sco es o he ocabula y placemen es we e no mally dis ibu ed
and he e o e, s uden ’s - es was used o de e mine s a is ical di e ences. FFL skills om
©DIALANG and da a om w i ing e o s analyses we e non-no mally dis ibu ed, and
Mann-Whi ney non-pa ame ic es was used o de e mine s a is ical signi icance. In addi ion,
he esul s o each a iable we e exp essed as mean and s anda d de ia ion (SD) alues and
p alues p<0.05 we e conside ed s a is ically signi ican in wo- ailed es s. In w i ing e o s
analyses, he pe cen age o s uden s who commi ed each pa icula e o , he dis ibu ion o
each ca ego y o w i ing e o s and hei espec i e sub ypes we e p esen ed as pe cen age
in hei espec i e ables.
5. esul s
5.1. Le el o FFL
Sel -assessmen o he FFL le el pe o med by each s uden anged om B1 o C2 o
EP. Fu he mo e, 82.5% o EP placed hemsel es a he C le el on he CEFR scales (27.5%
a C1 and 55% a C2) and 17.5% supposed ha ing a B le el (2.5% a B1 and 15% a B2).
These esul s sugges ed ha , as a as sel -assessmen is conce ned, EP supposed a high
FFL le el, compa able o na i e speake s.
A e sel -assessmen , s uden s pe o med he ©DIALANG in o de o ha e a mo e
objec i e o e iew on hei FL le el. Fi s , on he ocabula y placemen es , EP sco ed
a mean o 759/1000. In e es ingly, esul s by g oup e ealed ha PHILG oup ob ained a
highe mean sco e (766/1000) han TIG oup (731/1000) bu no s a is ical di e ences we e
ound (p=0.526).
Conce ning he acqui ed CEFR le els, esul s by EP showed ha 62.5% was placed a
B2 and 37.5% a C1. Obse ing esul s by g oup, 37.5% o bo h g oups we e placed a C1.

Po a Lingua um Nº 27, ene o 2017
146
In addi ion, mo e han hal o he pa icipan s (62.5% o PHILG oup and TIG oup) we e
placed a a B2 le el. None o hem was placed a C2.
Table 1 ©DIALANG analysis o FFL le el by skills
©DIALANG FFL SKILLS
G oups Lis ening W i ing Reading G amma Vocabula y
EP
4.5 ± 0.6 3.9 ± 0.5 5.0 ± 0.8 4.2 ± 0.7 4.1 ± 0.7
C1 B2 C1 B2 B2
PHIL 4.5 ± 0.7 3.9 ± 0.6 4.9 ± 0.8 4.1 ± 0.6 4.0 ± 0.7
C1 B2 C1 B2 B2
TI
4.4 ± 0.5 4.0 ± 0.5 5.4 ± 0.9 4.5 ± 0.9 4.1 ± 0.6
B2 B2 C1 C1 B2
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PHIL s. TI p=0.629 p=0.557 p=0.179 p=0.146 p=0.663
FFL esul s a e p esen ed as mean ± s anda d de ia ion alues o each g oup and skills. FFL le el is exp essed
acco ding o he CEFR scale. S a is ical p alues o Mann-Whi ney non-pa ame ic es a e shown and all
p alues below 0.05 we e conside ed s a is ically signi ican o he wo- ailed es .
In ela ion o ©DIALANG analysis o he CEFR le els o each skill (Table 1), EP
showed a B2 le el o w i ing, g amma and ocabula y, and a C1 le el o lis ening and
eading. Simila ly, PHILG oup ob ained a B2 le el o each skill. Howe e , o ecep i e
skills such as lis ening and eading skills, s uden s ob ained a highe le el (C1). Whils ,
obse ing he sco es ob ained by g oup, means o e e y skill we e e y simila o each
g oup. Howe e , o eading skills and g amma , TIG oup ou pe o med PHILG oup. Fi-
nally, when PHIL and TIG oups we e compa ed, no s a is ical signi ican di e ences we e
obse ed (p>0.05).
5.2. Analysis o w i en composi ions and gene al classi ica ion o he w i ing e o s
A sys em o classi ica ion o e o s was based on he axonomy es ablished by James
(James, 2013). A summa y o he numbe and pe cen age o e o s made in each main ca -
ego y o e o is summa ised in Table 2.
The o al analyzed co pus con ained a o al o 11069 wo ds w i en by 40 s uden s.
Tex leng h o he essays o he EP anged om 197 o 432 wo ds wi h a mean o 276.73
wo ds, which was unde he es ablished maximum leng h (400 wo ds). Mean leng h o he
essays o PHILG oup (271.28 wo ds) was sligh ly lowe han ha o he TIG oup (298.50
wo ds) bu bo h we e s ill unde he maximum es ablished leng h. In addi ion, he sho es
and he longes ex we e bo h w i en by s uden s o PHILG oup (Table 2).
A iAne uy elAe E alua ion o he W i en Compe ence o P e-se ice...
147
The gene al analysis o e o s e ealed a o al o 163 e o s (100%) in he analyzed
co pus. 80% o hese e o s we e commi ed by PHILG oup (131 e o s) and 20% by TIG oup
(32 e o s). Rega ding o he o al numbe o e o s, he e we e no signi ican di e ences
(p=0.919) be ween bo h g oups (Table 2).
Table 2 Gene al analysis o w i ing e o s.
MAIN
CATEGORIES OF
ERRORS
% CATEGORY
ERROR OF TOTAL
ERRORS EP (n=40) PHILG oup
(n=32) TIG oup (n=8)
LEXICAL 41.1% (67) 75% s uden s
1.68 ± 1.33
75% s uden s
1.69 ± 1.38
75% s uden s
1.63 ± 1.19
GRAMMATICAL 32.5% (53) 70% s uden s
1.33 ± 1.21
68.8% s uden s
1.28 ± 1.11
75% s uden s
1.50 ± 1.60
SPELLING 24.5% (40) 62.5% s uden s
1.00 ± 0.99
62.5% s uden s
1.06 ± 1.05
62.5% s uden s
0.75 ± 0.71
DISCURSIVE 1.2% (2) 5% s uden s
0.05 ± 0.22
3.1% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.18
12.5% s uden s
0.13 ± 0.35
CONTENT 0.61% (1) 2.5% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.16
3.1% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.18
0% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
TOTAL ERRORS 100% (163)
100% s uden s
(163)
4.08 ± 2.28
100% s uden s
(131)
4.09 ± 2.20
100% s uden s
(32)
4.00 ± 2.73
TOTAL WORDS
CORPUS 11069 11069
276.73 ± 60.52
8681
271.28 ± 59.61
2388
298.50 ± 63.19
The gene al dis ibu ion o each e o ca ego y is p esen ed as pe cen age and numbe o e o s be ween ()
o each one. In he analysis by g oup, pa icipan s who commi ed each ype o e o a e shown in pe cen -
age (% s uden s). W i ing e o s a e shown as mean ± s anda d de ia ion o each e o ca ego y and g oup.
O e all analysis o each ca ego y o e o e ealed ha ocabula y e o s we e he mos
equen wi h 41.1%, ollowed by g amma ical (32.5%) and spelling (24.5%) e o s. Discu si e
and con en e o s ep esen ed 1.2% and 0.61% espec i ely o all e o s (Table 2). Fi s , he
analysis o ocabula y e o s showed ha a la ge pe cen age o s uden s (75%) commi ed
his ype o e o in each g oup. The mean o ocabula y e o s was highe in PHILG oup
bu di e ences be ween g oups we e no s a is ically signi ican (p>0.05). Second, he analysis
o g amma ical e o s showed simila esul s whe e 75% o TIG oup commi ed his ype
o e o , ollowed by PHILG oup (68.75%). In addi ion, TIG oup showed highe mean o
g amma ical e o s bu his di e ence was no s a is ically signi ican (p>0.05). Thi d, he
analysis o spelling e o s e ealed ha mo e han hal o he s uden s (62.5%) commi ed
Po a Lingua um Nº 27, ene o 2017
148
his ype o e o in each g oup, bu spelling e o s we e less equen han ocabula y and
g amma ical e o s. Finally, discu si e and con en e o s we e less equen han all he o he
e o s desc ibed abo e and no s a is ical di e ences we e obse ed (Table 2).
5.3. Analysis o sub ypes o w i ing e o s
The analysis o syb ypes o w i ing e o s e ealed ha main pa o he sub ypes o
e o s was p esen in he h ee main ca ego ies o e o s, especially in g amma ical and lexical
e o s, bu clea di e ences we e obse ed in hei dis ibu ion along g oups (Table 3). Fi s ,
when g amma ical e o s we e deeply analyzed, i was obse ed ha a high pe cen age o
s uden s commi ed g amma ical omission and o e inclusion e o s, ollowed by misselec ion
and o de . This o de was as well obse ed in he mean alues o e o s o each sub ype
(Table 3). Indeed, mean alues in o e inclusion e o s we e he highes in TIG oup, bu
wi hou s a is ically signi ican di e ences compa ing o PHILG oup. Omission g amma ical
e o s showed he second highes mean alues in TIG oup and did no p esen s a is ical
di e ences (Table 3). In he case o g amma ical misselec ion and o de e o s, mean alues
we e lowe and no s a is ical di e ences we e iden i ied be ween g oups.
Table 3 De ailed analysis o he sub ypes o w i ing e o s.
7

GROUPS
SUBTYPES OF WRITING ERRORS
DISTRIBUTION OF SUBTYPES OF
ERRORS
OMISSION
MISSELECTION
OVERINCLUSION
ORDER
LEXICAL
EP
7.5% s uden s
0.08 ± 0.27
75% s uden s
1.58 ± 1.26
0% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
2.5% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.16
MISSELECTION: 94% / 38.7%
OMISSION: 4.5% / 1.8%
ORDER: 0% / 0%
OVERINCLUSION: 1.5% / 0.6%
PHIL
6.3% s uden s
0.06 ± 0.25
75% s uden s
1.59 ± 1.32
0% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
3.1% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.18
TI
12.5% s uden s
0.13 ± 0.35
75% s uden s
1.50 ± 1.07
0% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
0% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
GRAMMATICAL
EP
47.5% s uden s
0.55 ± 0.64
27.5% s uden s
0.30 ± 0.52
30% s uden s
0.43 ± 0.78
5% s uden s
0.05 ± 0.22
OMISSION: 41.5% / 3.5%
OVERINCLUSION: 32.1% / 10.5%
MISSELECTION: 22.6% / 7.4%
ORDER: 3.8% / 1.2%
PHIL
50% s uden s
0.56 ± 0.62
31,3% s uden s
0.34 ± 0.55
25% s uden s
0.34 ± 0.70
3.1% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.18
TI
37.5% s uden s
0.50 ± 0.76
12,5% s uden s
0.13 ± 0.35
50% s uden s
0.75 ± 1.04
12.5% s uden s
0.13 ± 0.35
DISCURSIVE
EP
2.5% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.16
2.5% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.16
0% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
2.5% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
OMISSION: 50% / 0.6%
MISSELECTION: 50% / 0.6%
OVERINCLUSION: 0% / 0%
ORDER: 0% / 0%
PHIL
0% s uden s
0.0 ± 0.00 (α; p=0.046)
3.1% s uden s
0.03 ± 0.18
% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
3.1% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
TI
12.5% s uden s
0.13 ± 0.35
% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
0% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
0% s uden s
0.00 ± 0.00
Table 3 De ailed analysis o he sub ypes o w i ing e o s
The dis ibu ion o each sub ype o e o in each main ca ego y is shown in dec easing o de as he pe cen age o each sub ype o he o al numbe o e o s in i s ca ego y and he pe cen age o
each sub ype o he o al e o s p esen in he co pus. In he analysis by g oup, pa icipan s who commi ed each ype o e o a e shown in pe cen age (% s uden s). W i ing e o s in each g oup
a e shown as mean ± s anda d de ia ion. (α) shows signi ican di e ences in compa ison o TIG oup and hei espec i e p alue o Mann-Whi ney non-pa ame ic es . All p alues below 0.05
we e conside ed s a is ically signi ican o he wo- ailed es .
The dis ibu ion o each sub ype o e o in each main ca ego y is shown in dec easing o de as he pe cen -
age o each sub ype o he o al numbe o e o s in i s ca ego y and he pe cen age o each sub ype o he
o al e o s p esen in he co pus. In he analysis by g oup, pa icipan s who commi ed each ype o e o
a e shown in pe cen age (% s uden s). W i ing e o s in each g oup a e shown as mean ± s anda d de ia ion.
(α) shows signi ican di e ences in compa ison o TIG oup and hei espec i e p alue o Mann-Whi ney
non-pa ame ic es . All p alues below 0.05 we e conside ed s a is ically signi ican o he wo- ailed es .
Second, analysis o lexical e o s showed ha a high pe cen age o s uden s commi ed
lexical misselec ion e o s as compa ed o he o he sub ypes o lexical e o s. Fu he mo e,
highe bu no signi ican (p>0.05) mean alues we e obse ed in PHILG oup in compa ison
o TIG oup. Mean alues o he o he lexical sub ypes w i ing e o s we e conside ably lowe
(all below 0.13 e o s) han misselec ion (Table 3).
A iAne uy elAe E alua ion o he W i en Compe ence o P e-se ice...
149
Thi d, in-dep h analysis o discu si e e o s con i med he lowe p esence o hese
e o s in EP. The only sub ypes o discu si e e o s p esen we e omission ollowed by
misselec ion and no s a is ical di e ences we e obse ed, excep o omission (p=0.046).
Rema kably, TIG oup only commi ed omission e o s (Table 3).
Finally, when he dis ibu ion o sub ypes o e o s was analyzed in ela ion wi h he
o al numbe o e o s in i s ca ego y and wi h he o al numbe o e o s in he co pus, a
majo a ia ion was obse ed. In he case o g amma ical e o s, he dis ibu ion o sub ypes
o e o s was he e ogeneous whe e he mos equen sub ype o e o was omission (41.5%),
ollowed by o e inclusion, misselec ion and o de . In e es ingly, g amma ical omission e o
ep esen ed 13.5% o all he e o s p esen in he co pus. Unlike g amma ical e o s, in he
case o lexical e o s, he sub ypes o e o s we e less dis ibu ed whe e 94% was lexical
misselec ion. In con as wi h g amma ical omission e o s, lexical misselec ion e o s ep-
esen ed 38.7% o all e o s. A las , he mos equen sub ypes o discu si e e o s we e
misselec ion and o de wi h 50% each. Howe e , discu si e misselec ion and omission e o s
ep esen ed less han 1% o all e o s. Examples o all he ypes o e o s can be ound in
able 4.
Table 4 Examples o w i ing e o s
9

EXAMPLES OF WRITING ERRORS
OMISSION
MISSELECTION
OVERINCLUSION
ORDER
GRAMMATICAL
B e , l’app en issage du ançais s’a è e
ès u ile de pou oi communique , e (…) la
communica ion a ec les pays plus loin ain.
B e , si ou Eu opéen doi é udie deux
langues, nous dési e ons qu’il de ai ê e
l’anglais e le ançais.
Posséde des compé ences
ançaises, à quoi ça se -il?
Ils le eulen su ou app end e pou
pou oi a aille , oyage , e c.,
pa ce que c’es une langue p a ique
dans le monde.
LEXICAL
En ce qui conce ne le ançais, connaî e
ce e langue signi ie en même econnaî e la
g ande pa ie des Eu opéens qui la pa len .
En in, la F ance es le pays le plus ado é
comme pays de acance. /
Si ous su un de os oyages ai es
un e o en e s les gens, ces
de nie s e on sans dou e la même
chose pou ous.
DISCURSIVE
/
A cause de la p ésence é endue de ce e
langue, dans beaucoup de pays, il es
nécessai e ou au moins ès u ile pou les
non- ancophones d’en a oi une bonne
connaissance (…).
/ /
SPELLING
La communica ion en Eu ope pou ai s’ammélio e si le ançais ece ai plus d’impo ance à l’école.
CONTENT
Dans l’Eu ope, les pays les plus impo an s du poin de ue économique son l’Allemagne, les E a s-Unis, mais aussi la F ance ai pa ie de ce g oupe.
Table 4 Examples o w i ing e o s
Examples o w i ing e o s obse ed in he co pus. E o s a e indica ed in bold.
Examples o w i ing e o s obse ed in he co pus. E o s a e indica ed in bold.
6. dIscussIon
In he p esen s udy, due o he g ea impo ance o a high FL le el in p e-se ice
eache s one o he aims was o de e mine he FFL le el and o assess he w i ing skills
o na i e Belgian Du ch pos g adua e s uden s en olled in an ATEP. In his ega d, in o de
o de e mine he FFL le el, a combina ion o sel -assessmen (subjec i e) and ©DIALANG
(objec i e) we e pe o med and compa ed. In he case o ©DIALANG, i was chosen hanks
o i s demons a ed high e icacy, he eliabili y o esul s, and because i allows o pe o m
a comple e e alua ion o i e FL skills (Zhang & Thompson, 2004; Ockey, 2009; Klimo a &
Hubacko a, 2013). I was a use ul ool bu i was no possible o assess he o al p oduc ion
o he s uden s, and he e o e he o e all FFL le el is s ill unknown.