Process approaches to writing are widely used in various second language teaching contexts, and many teachers and researchers are trying to find more efficient and meaningful ways to help students to improve their writing skills. Especially in the revision process, students can get help from teacher feedback, so they can have more opportunities to improve their drafts. In a class of 30 students, however, it is very difficult for a teacher to provide timely feedback to all students. The quality and the amount of teacher feedback can fall off due to time constraints and the number of students' drafts. If it is used effectively, a great help to a teacher of a writing class, then is peer feedback. Peer feedback can provide such other benefits as a sense of audience and ownership, more meaningful collaborative learning, and student awareness of the strengths and weaknesses in their drafts. The following report discusses the nature of peer feedback in writing and illustrates the effects of such feedback on students' perspectives about the revision process. The report also traces impact of providing and receiving different types of feedback. It shows us the unique features of paper-and-pencil and computer-mediated peer feedback, and highlights the important points in linguistic and extra linguistic elements observed in peer feedback. / text

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (L.L.M.)" / Une personne est injustement condamnée à l'emprisonnement. Elle est victime d'une erreur judiciaire. Plusieurs causes peuvent être à l'origine d'une telle injustice mais malheureusement il est difficile de le prouver. Le système de justice pénale au pays n'est pas à l'abri des condamnations injustifiées et plusieurs innocentes victimes en ont payé le prix. Or, comment une victime d'erreur judiciaire peut-elle prouver son innocence et ainsi recouvrer la liberté à laquelle elle a droit? Certes, l'aveu du coupable ou la découverte d'une nouvelle preuve peuvent servir de moyens de reconnaissance factuelle d'une condamnation injustifiée. Toutefois, certains obstacles procéduraux comme les délais d'appel, les règles d'admissibilité de la preuve nouvelle ou encore le mécanisme de correction des erreurs judiciaires prévu aux articles 696.1 et suivants du Code criminel peuvent compliquer le scénario. Avant le 4 juin 2002, cette dernière procédure était visée par l'article 690 du Code. Toutefois, suite à de nombreuses critiques ainsi qu'à une consultation publique orchestrée par le gouvernement canadien, des modifications législatives ont été apportées à cette procédure. Mais celles-ci sont-elles suffisantes? Nous pensons que certaines des modifications sont grandement appréciables. Cependant, la structure d'évaluation des dossiers et de recommandation des dossiers au ministre de la Justice mériterait la mise en place d'un comité formé d'avocats indépendants pour conseiller ce dernier. Cela est nécessaire afin de réduire à néant tout conflit d'intérêts potentiel de la part du Ministre et d'assurer la transparence du processus en cause. / A person is unjustly condemned to imprisonment. He or she is victim of a wrongful conviction. Many causes can lead to such an injustice but unfortunately, it is hard to prove. The country's criminal justice system makes no exception to wrongful verdicts of guilt and many innocent people have paid the priee. Thus, how can a person victim of a wrongful conviction prove his innocence and recover his rightful freedom? Of course, the confession of the true guilty person, the discovery of new evidence or a special inquiry commission are all ways of recognizing factually an unjust guilty verdict. However, certain procedural obstacles such as appeal delays, rules of admissibility of new evidence or even the procedure for correcting wrongful convictions provided under article 696.1 and following of the Criminal code, can complicate the scenario. Before June 4, 2002, the latter procedure was provided under article 690 of the Code. However, following great criticism as well as a public consultation orchestrated by the Canadian government, legislative modifications were brought to that procedure. Are the modifications made to the procedure sufficient? We believe that some of them are greatly appreciable. However, the evaluation and case recommendation structure to the Minister deserves the creation of a committee constituted by attorneys fully independent of the Minister able to advise him or her. This is necessary in order to fully reduce any potential conflicts of interest by the Minister and would ensure transparence of the process in question.

Une personne est injustement condamnée à l'emprisonnement. Elle est victime d'une erreur judiciaire. Plusieurs causes peuvent être à l'origine d'une telle injustice mais malheureusement il est difficile de le prouver. Le système de justice pénale au pays n'est pas à l'abri des condamnations injustifiées et plusieurs innocentes victimes en ont payé le prix. Or, comment une victime d'erreur judiciaire peut-elle prouver son innocence et ainsi recouvrer la liberté à laquelle elle a droit? Certes, l'aveu du coupable ou la découverte d'une nouvelle preuve peuvent servir de moyens de reconnaissance factuelle d'une condamnation injustifiée. Toutefois, certains obstacles procéduraux comme les délais d'appel, les règles d'admissibilité de la preuve nouvelle ou encore le mécanisme de correction des erreurs judiciaires prévu aux articles 696.1 et suivants du Code criminel peuvent compliquer le scénario. Avant le 4 juin 2002, cette dernière procédure était visée par l'article 690 du Code. Toutefois, suite à de nombreuses critiques ainsi qu'à une consultation publique orchestrée par le gouvernement canadien, des modifications législatives ont été apportées à cette procédure. Mais celles-ci sont-elles suffisantes? Nous pensons que certaines des modifications sont grandement appréciables. Cependant, la structure d'évaluation des dossiers et de recommandation des dossiers au ministre de la Justice mériterait la mise en place d'un comité formé d'avocats indépendants pour conseiller ce dernier. Cela est nécessaire afin de réduire à néant tout conflit d'intérêts potentiel de la part du Ministre et d'assurer la transparence du processus en cause. / A person is unjustly condemned to imprisonment. He or she is victim of a wrongful conviction. Many causes can lead to such an injustice but unfortunately, it is hard to prove. The country's criminal justice system makes no exception to wrongful verdicts of guilt and many innocent people have paid the priee. Thus, how can a person victim of a wrongful conviction prove his innocence and recover his rightful freedom? Of course, the confession of the true guilty person, the discovery of new evidence or a special inquiry commission are all ways of recognizing factually an unjust guilty verdict. However, certain procedural obstacles such as appeal delays, rules of admissibility of new evidence or even the procedure for correcting wrongful convictions provided under article 696.1 and following of the Criminal code, can complicate the scenario. Before June 4, 2002, the latter procedure was provided under article 690 of the Code. However, following great criticism as well as a public consultation orchestrated by the Canadian government, legislative modifications were brought to that procedure. Are the modifications made to the procedure sufficient? We believe that some of them are greatly appreciable. However, the evaluation and case recommendation structure to the Minister deserves the creation of a committee constituted by attorneys fully independent of the Minister able to advise him or her. This is necessary in order to fully reduce any potential conflicts of interest by the Minister and would ensure transparence of the process in question. / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (L.L.M.)"

The study aims to examine (1) the extent to which EFL learners in upper secondary school use feedback comments from teachers and peers to revise their texts and how the usage patterns vary by type of feedback approach, (2) how the students use feedback to revise their texts and how the usage patterns vary by type of feedback approach, and (3) What positive or negative effects the type of feedback approach has on students’ revisions. Moreover, the study aims to investigate the extent the type of feedback approach affects students’ usage patterns in their revisions. The findings will provide a basis for discussions about the possible qualities of written feedback that could be included to help students improve their writing skills. Content analysis of 28 argumentative essays written by first-year upper secondary students in Sweden is used to identify the type of feedback provided by teachers and peers and the type of revisions made by the students. Using the identified types of feedback and revisions, a text analysis was adopted to examine the frequency of feedback and revisions, and how students used it to revise their text. Furthermore, the results are presented and compared to different relevant studies (e.g., Baker, 2016; Lee; 2008) and theories such as Krashen's (1985) input hypothesis and Swain's (2005) output hypothesis, to draw some insights into the effects of feedback on students' revisions. The results show that students utilized corrective feedback on the micro level more than the macro level – especially indirect corrective feedback on the micro level. The students used most of the feedback to revise their errors on the micro level such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation; however, a few revisions were made on the macro level where students improved their text by restructuring their arguments and ideas. Finally, the findings indicate that formative feedback had a positive effect on students' revisions both on the macro and micro level where students improved the coherence and cohesion of their texts in the final draft. Therefore, if formative feedback is applied in the appropriate context, it may help students develop their writing abilities.