Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorMoreno Bueno, Erika Zulayspa
dc.contributor.authorSarmiento Muñoz, Jesica Vanessaspa
dc.coverage.spatialBucaramanga (Santander, Colombia)spa
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-04T20:03:53Z
dc.date.available2021-02-04T20:03:53Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12749/12130
dc.description.abstractLa presente investigación fue diseñada con el fin de analizar las preferencias de los estudiantes de una asignatura de inglés como lengua extranjera nivel A1, ante la provisión de retroalimentación correctiva escrita focalizada de tipo directa e indirecta con información metalingüística, para el logro de una mayor precisión gramatical del pasado simple y adjetivos comparativos en el proceso de revisión y edición de párrafos escritos. Este estudio es de enfoque cualitativo y se encuentra bajo los lineamientos de la investigación acción. La muestra estuvo constituida por 15 participantes de pregrado de una Institución de Educación Superior pública ubicada en la ciudad de Bucaramanga en Colombia. Dos instrumentos de recolección de datos fueron diseñados con el objeto de conocer predilecciones en cuanto a la provisión y uso de estrategias de retroalimentación correctiva. Su ejecución se llevó a cabo en siete etapas en las que se resaltan la redacción de dos tareas de escritura, provisión de retroalimentación, revisión y edición, además de la aplicación de un cuestionario de preguntas abiertas. Los resultados arrojados por la investigación permitieron reconocer los dos tipos de retroalimentación implementados como herramientas efectivas a la hora de mejorar la precisión gramatical en las estructuras analizadas, aunque cabe resaltar la preferencia por el uso de la retroalimentación correctiva escrita focalizada de tipo indirecta con información metalingüística al permitir a los estudiantes analizar errores a profundidad, reglas gramaticales conectadas con estos y hacer correcciones efectivas en el proceso de revisión y edición. Finalmente, se concluyó la importancia de investigar las preferencias de los estudiantes ante la provisión de retroalimentación correctiva con el fin de atender a sus necesidades y seleccionar estrategias útiles y comprensibles.spa
dc.description.tableofcontentsINTRODUCCIÓN .................................................................................................................... 1 CAPÍTULO I ........................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCCIÓN ........................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Planteamiento del problema ................................................................................ 5 1.2 Objetivos ............................................................................................................... 7 1.2.1 General. ................................................................................................. 7 1.2.2 Específicos. ........................................................................................... 8 1.3 Supuestos Cualitativos ......................................................................................... 8 1.4 Justificación .......................................................................................................... 8 CAPÍTULO II ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Antecedentes ...................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Efectividad de tipologías o estrategias de RCE ................................. 12 2.1.2 Tipologías de RCE y preferencias de los alumnos............................. 13 2.1.3 Preferencias de estudiantes, creencias y prácticas de los docentes . 19 2.1.4 Antecedente de mención especial ...................................................... 22 2.2 Marco Teórico y conceptual ............................................................................... 23 2.2.1 Perspectivas Teóricas ......................................................................... 23 2.2.1.1 Análisis de errores ................................................................ 23 2.2.1.2 La teoría sociocultural .......................................................... 24 2.2.1.3 La hipótesis del Output ........................................................ 26 2.2.1.4 La hipótesis del noticing ....................................................... 27 2.2.1.5 Atención a la forma .............................................................. 28 2.2.2 Retroalimentación en la adquisición de segundas lenguas ............... 31 2.2.2.1 Retroalimentación positiva ................................................... 31 2.2.2.2 Retroalimentación correctiva................................................ 32 2.2.2.3 Retroalimentación correctiva oral ........................................ 32 2.2.2.4 La retroalimentación correctiva escrita (RCE) ..................... 32 2.2.3 Uso e importancia de la retroalimentación para responder a los escritos de los estudiantes ........................................................................... 33 2.2.4 Tipologías de RCE .............................................................................. 37 2.2.4.1 RCE directa .......................................................................... 38 2.2.4.2 RCE indirecta ....................................................................... 39 2.2.4.3 RCE metalingüística ............................................................. 40 2.2.4.4 RCE focalizada y no focalizada ........................................... 41 2.2.4.5 Uso de códigos en la RCE ................................................... 42 2.2.4.6 La reformulación en RCE ..................................................... 43 2.2.4.7 La retroalimentación electrónica .......................................... 43 2.2.5 Preferencia de los estudiantes ante el uso de la RCE ....................... 44 2.2.6 La escritura en la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera ...... 46 2.2.7 Proceso de revisión y edición en la escritura ..................................... 49 2.3 Marco Legal ........................................................................................................ 52 CAPÍTULO III ....................................................................................................................... 55 3.1. Método de investigación.................................................................................... 55 3.1.1 Fases del diseño metodológico .......................................................... 58 3.1.1.1 Fase preparatoria ................................................................. 58 3.1.1.2 Fase de trabajo de campo ................................................... 59 3.1.1.3 Fase analítica ....................................................................... 60 3.1.2 Categorías de análisis iniciales ........................................................... 61 3.2 Población, participantes y selección de la muestra ........................................... 62 3.2.1 Reducción de la muestra .................................................................... 65 3.3 Técnicas e instrumentos de recolección de datos ............................................. 66 3.3.1 Tareas de escritura ............................................................................. 67 3.3.2 Cuestionario de preguntas abiertas .................................................... 67 3.4 Aplicación de técnicas y métodos de recolección de datos .............................. 68 3.4.1 Tareas de Escritura ............................................................................. 68 3.4.2 Cuestionario de preguntas abiertas .................................................... 73 3.5 Validación de los instrumentos .......................................................................... 74 3.5.1 Tareas de escritura, revisión y edición ............................................... 75 3.5.2 Cuestionario de preguntas abiertas .................................................... 76 3.6 Aspectos Éticos .................................................................................................. 76 CAPÍTULO IV ....................................................................................................................... 78 4.1 Proceso de análisis de datos ............................................................................. 79 4.2 Análisis y resultados ........................................................................................... 85 4.2.1 Categoría N°1: RCE como estrategia de noticing. ............................. 85 4.2.2 Categoría N°2: Importancia del proceso de revisión y edición .......... 88 4.2.3 Categoría N°3 Preferencias de RCE .................................................. 91 4.2.3.1 RCE focalizada y no focalizada ........................................... 92 4.2.3.2 RCE directa .......................................................................... 95 4.2.3.3 RCE focalizada indirecta con información metalingüística . 99 4.2.3.4 Preferencias: RCE focalizada directa o RCE focalizada indirecta con información metalingüística ...................................... 102 4.2.4 Categoría N°4: Reparación de errores y precisión gramatical ......... 105 4.2.5 Categoría N°5: Efectividad de RCE .................................................. 107 4.3 Confiabilidad de los resultados ........................................................................ 111 CAPÍTULO V ...................................................................................................................... 115 5.1 Resumen de hallazgos ..................................................................................... 115 5.2 Limitaciones ...................................................................................................... 122 5.3 Recomendaciones ............................................................................................ 123 REFERENCIAS .................................................................................................................. 127 ANEXOS ............................................................................................................................. 137spa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/*
dc.titleRetroalimentación correctiva escrita: análisis descriptivo de las preferencias de los estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjeraspa
dc.title.translatedWritten corrective feedback: descriptive analysis of the preferences of students of English as a foreign languagespa
dc.degree.nameMagíster en Educaciónspa
dc.publisher.grantorUniversidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNABspa
dc.rights.localAbierto (Texto Completo)spa
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad Ciencias Sociales, Humanidades y Artesspa
dc.publisher.programMaestría en Educaciónspa
dc.description.degreelevelMaestríaspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.type.localTesisspa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdcc
dc.subject.keywordsEducationspa
dc.subject.keywordsQuality in educationspa
dc.subject.keywordsCorrective feedbackspa
dc.subject.keywordsFocused corrective feedbackspa
dc.subject.keywordsForeign languagesspa
dc.subject.keywordsGrammar accuracyspa
dc.subject.keywordsMetalinguistic informationspa
dc.subject.keywordsTeaching englishspa
dc.subject.keywordsHigher educationspa
dc.subject.keywordsTeaching methodsspa
dc.identifier.instnameinstname:Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga - UNABspa
dc.identifier.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional UNABspa
dc.type.hasversioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.rights.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa
dc.relation.referencesAfitska, O. (2015) Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: some insights from recent second language acquisition research. Language Learning Journal, 43(1). 57 - 73. ISSN 0957-1736spa
dc.relation.referencesAlamis, M. (2010). Evaluating students’ reactions and responses to teachers’ written feedbacks. Philippine ESL Journal, 5, 40-57spa
dc.relation.referencesAl-Bakri, S. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Teachers’ beliefs, practices and challenges in an Oami context. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 44-73. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1207970.pdfspa
dc.relation.referencesAl-Jarrah, R. (2016). A suggested model of corrective feedback provision. Ampersand, 3, 98-107. doi: 10.1016/j.amper.2016.06.003spa
dc.relation.referencesAmrhein, H. R., y Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: what do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127.spa
dc.relation.referencesAlkhatib, N. (2015). Written Corrective Feedback at a Saudi University: English Language Teachers’ Beliefs, Students’ Preferences, and Teachers’ Practices. [Tesis de doctorado, University of Essex]. http://repository.essex.ac.uk/15382/1/THESIS%206Oct..pdfspa
dc.relation.referencesAngus, C. (2017). The effect of focused corrective feedback on the use of articles in essays by ESL learners. [Tesis de maestría, University of Malaya]. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6ac2/9ff4fb1b2bc22e324c0b042677356ec4ff8.pdfspa
dc.relation.referencesBeigi Rizi, A., y Ketabi, S. (2015). A close look at sixty years of corrective feedback. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(1), 63–67.spa
dc.relation.referencesBirenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33(1),71-84.spa
dc.relation.referencesBitchener, J., Young, S., y Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191205. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001spa
dc.relation.referencesBitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004spa
dc.relation.referencesBitchener, J., y Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006spa
dc.relation.referencesBlack, D., y Nanni, A. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Preferences and justifications of teachers and students in a Thai context. GEMA Online® Journal Of Language Studies, 16(3), 99-114. doi: 10.17576/gema-2016-1603-0spa
dc.relation.referencesBrice, C. (1995) 'ESL Writers’ Reactions to Teacher Commentary: A Case Study'. The Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. held 26 March – 1 April 1995 at Long Beach, CAspa
dc.relation.referencesBrookhart, S. (2008) How to give effective feedback to your students /Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.spa
dc.relation.referencesBurns, Anne (2015). Action Research. En Brown y Coombe (eds). The Cambridge guide to research in language teaching and learning, vol 1 Cambridge University Press. 187-202. Disponible en línea en https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282199978_Action_research (acceso: septiembre 2019)spa
dc.relation.referencesBurt, M. (1975). Error Analysis in the Adult EFL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53-63. doi:10.2307/3586012spa
dc.relation.referencesCáceres, C. (2016). El efecto del Feedback Correctivo Escrito (FCE) metalingüístico Directo e Indirecto en la precisión ortográfica. Recuperado de http://repositorio.udec.cl/handle/11594/2055spa
dc.relation.referencesCáceres, P. (2003). Análisis cualitativo de contenido: Una alternativa metodológica alcanzable. Psico perspectivas, 2, 53 - 82spa
dc.relation.referencesCarrillo M, Leyva-Moral JM, Medina JL (2011). El análisis de los datos cualitativos: Un proceso complejo. Index de Enfermería 2011, 20(1-2). http://www.indexf.com/index-enfermeria/v20n1-2/7441.php (acceso: 29/12/2015).spa
dc.relation.referencesChandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. doi: 10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9spa
dc.relation.referencesChieng, S. L. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on the use of present tenses among ESL learners. [Tesis de maestría, University of Malaya]. http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/5447spa
dc.relation.referencesCohen, A. (1989). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing. Guidelines, 11(2), 1-9spa
dc.relation.referencesCohen, A. D., y Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesCONSEJO DE EUROPA 2002 (2001): Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. (traducido por el Instituto Cervantes 2002) Madrid, Anayaspa
dc.relation.referencesCorder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161spa
dc.relation.referencesCorpuz, V. (2011). Error Correction in Second Language Writing: Teachers’ Beliefs, Practices and Students’ Preferences. [Tesis de maestría, Queensland University of Technology]. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/49160/1/Victor_Corpuz_Thesis.pdfspa
dc.relation.referencesCostello, P. (2007). Action research. Continuum.spa
dc.relation.referencesCreswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Educationspa
dc.relation.referencesCuxim, M. (2018). Efectos de la retroalimentación correctiva en la producción escrita de estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera. Recuperado de http://risisbi.uqroo.mx/handle/20.500.12249/1584spa
dc.relation.referencesD. Rowe, A., y N. Wood, L. (2009). Students’ perceptions and preferences for feedback. Asian Social Science, 4(3). doi: 10.5539/ass.v4n3p78spa
dc.relation.referencesEfron, S. E., y Ravid, R. (2013). Action research in education: A practical guide. The Guilford Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesElliott, J. (1990). La investigación-acción en educación. Morata.spa
dc.relation.referencesEllis, R. (1998). Teaching and Research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 39. doi: 10.2307/3587901spa
dc.relation.referencesEllis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.xspa
dc.relation.referencesEllis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107spa
dc.relation.referencesEllis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., y Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001spa
dc.relation.referencesEllis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/12.vlol.9054spa
dc.relation.referencesEllis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2), 335–349spa
dc.relation.referencesEllis, R. (2013). Corrective feedback in teacher guides and SLA. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 1-18spa
dc.relation.referencesEllis, R. (2015). The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching. Eurasian Journal Of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1-12. doi: 10.32601/ejal.460611spa
dc.relation.referencesEslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445-452. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.438spa
dc.relation.referencesFareed, M., Almas, A., y Muhammad B. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills: Problems, factors and suggestions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences 4(2), 80-92spa
dc.relation.referencesFarjadnasab, A., y khodashenas, M. (2017). The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Students' Writing Accuracy. International Journal Of Research In English Education, 2(2), 30-42. doi: 10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.2.30spa
dc.relation.referencesFathman, A. K., y Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form versus Content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Pressspa
dc.relation.referencesFerrance, E. (2000). Action Research. Themes in Education. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown Universityspa
dc.relation.referencesFerreira Cabrera, A. (2017). El efecto del feedback correctivo para mejorar la destreza escrita en ELE*. Colombian Appl. Linguist. J., 19(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v19n1.10220spa
dc.relation.referencesFerris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students (1st ed.). Routledgespa
dc.relation.referencesFerris, D. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), pp.49-62spa
dc.relation.referencesFerris, D., y Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teacher response to student writing: Issues in oral and written feedback. Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice, 184-222spa
dc.relation.referencesFerris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003spa
dc.relation.referencesFrantzen, D. (1995). The Effects of Grammar Supplementation on Written Accuracy in an Intermediate Spanish Content Course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-344. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb01108.xspa
dc.relation.referencesGholaminia, I., Gholaminia, A., y Marzban, A. (2014). An Investigation of Meta-linguistic Corrective Feedback in Writing Performance. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 116, 316-320. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.214spa
dc.relation.referencesGibbs, G. (2007). El análisis de datos cualitativos. Ediciones Morata.spa
dc.relation.referencesGillham, B. (2015). Developing a questionnaire. Bloomsbury Academicspa
dc.relation.referencesGoldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.006spa
dc.relation.referencesGorbet. Frances. "Error Analysis: What the Teacher Can Do: A New Perspective." Research Division, Public Service Commission of Canada. November, 1974. EDRS: ED 100 193.spa
dc.relation.referencesHan, Y., y Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002spa
dc.relation.referencesHarklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 329-350. doi: 10.1016/s1060-3743(02)000917spa
dc.relation.referencesHedgcock, J., y Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some Input on Input: Two Analyses of Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287. doi: 10.2307/329437spa
dc.relation.referencesHendrickson, J. (1978). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice*. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1978.tb02409.xspa
dc.relation.referencesHernández, R., Fernández, C., Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la Investigación (5th ed.). Mc Graw Hill.spa
dc.relation.referencesHinkel, E. (2011): ‹‹What research on second language writing tells us and what it doesn't.›› en e.hinkel (ed.), handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, vol 2 routledge. 523-538. disponible en línea en (acceso: mayo 2011)spa
dc.relation.referencesHopkins, D. (1985). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Milton Keynes. Open University Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesHyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230. doi: 10.1016/s0346-251x(03)00021-6spa
dc.relation.referencesHyland, K., y Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. doi: 10.1017/s0261444806003399spa
dc.relation.referencesIbarrola, A.(2009). Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. Revista Española De Lingüística Aplicada, 22,189215spa
dc.relation.referencesIlenguas Proyectos (2016). Manual del Instructor del Instituto de Lenguas. https://sites.google.com/site/manualdelinstructoriluis/?pli=1spa
dc.relation.referencesKamberi, L. (2013). The significance of teacher feedback in EFL writing for tertiary level foreign language learners. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1686-1690. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.241spa
dc.relation.referencesKepner, C. (1991). An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305. doi: 10.2307/328724spa
dc.relation.referencesKhaled, K. (2013). The effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (CF) on English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students’ revision accuracy and writing skills. [Tesis de doctorado, University of Victoria]. http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/handle/1828/5157spa
dc.relation.referencesKim, J. H. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL y Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8BR8RPTspa
dc.relation.referencesLalande, J. (1982). Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.xspa
dc.relation.referencesLantolf, J. P. 2006. “Sociocultural theory and L2”. State of the Art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 67-109spa
dc.relation.referencesLantolf, J. (2011). Integrating sociocultural theory and cognitive linguistics in the second language classroom. In Eli Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. II), pp. 303-318. New York: Routledgespa
dc.relation.referencesLeki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218. doi: 10.1111/j.19449720.1991.tb00464.xspa
dc.relation.referencesLightbown, P., y Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-Form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies In Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448. doi: 10.1017/s0272263100009517spa
dc.relation.referencesLoewen, S. (2011). Focus on form. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Volume II (pp. 576–592). New York, NY: Routledge.spa
dc.relation.referencesLong, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, y T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Pressspa
dc.relation.referencesMacías, D. F. (2011). Towards the use of focus on form instruction in foreign language learning and teaching in Colombia. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 16(29), 127-143spa
dc.relation.referencesMartín-Crespo, M. y Salamanca, A. (2007). El muestreo en la investigación cualitativa. Nure Investigación, 27, Artículo 4. Extraído el 20 Mayo, 2009, de http://www.nureinvestigacion.es/FICHEROS_ADMINISTRADOR/F_METODOLOGI CA/FMetodologica_27.pdfspa
dc.relation.referencesMartínez, E (2016). Estrategias de feedback correctivo metalingüístico para el mejoramiento de la ortografía acentual en español como L1. Recuperado de http://repositorio.udec.cl/jspui/handle/11594/2071spa
dc.relation.referencesMcGrath, A., y Atkinson-Leadbeater, K. (2016). Instructor comments on student writing: Learner response to electronic written feedback. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching y Learning Journal, 8(3), 1 - 16.spa
dc.relation.referencesMiles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., y Saldaäna, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Third edition.). Thousand Oaks, Califorinia: SAGE Publications, Inc.spa
dc.relation.referencesMonje, C. A. (2011). Metodología de la Investigación Cuantitativa y Cualitativa, Guía Didáctica. Obtenido de http://carmonje. wikispaces. com/file/view/Monje+ Carlos+ Arturo+-+ Gu% C3% ADa, 1001, C3spa
dc.relation.referencesMuñoz, B. (2017). Efecto de dos Combinaciones de Feedback Correctivo Escrito Focalizado Indirecto en dos Formas Gramaticales Seleccionadas por Estudiantes de Inglés como Lengua Extranjera. Recuperado de http://repositorio.udec.cl/handle/11594/2404spa
dc.relation.referencesMurphy, L. y Roca de Larios, J. (2014), «Feedback in Second Language Writing: An Introduction», International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 2010, pp. i-xvspa
dc.relation.referencesO'Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37(1), 1-28. doi: 10.1017/s0261444804002113spa
dc.relation.referencesOrtiz, M. (2016). Uso de la retroalimentación correctiva focalizada indirecta con claves metalingüísticas en la adquisición del sufijo-s en la tercera persona del singular en inglés, en estudiantes de un programa de formación pedagógica en EFL de una universidad chilena. Folios, (44), 127-136.spa
dc.relation.referencesRadecki, P., y Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16(3), 355-365. doi: 10.1016/0346-251x (88)90078-4spa
dc.relation.referencesRuiz, J. (2007). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.spa
dc.relation.referencesRustipa, K. (2011). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage and the implication to language teaching. Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora, 11(1).spa
dc.relation.referencesSaedi, M. y Chong, L. (2003). Focus on Form Approach in an EFL Context. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255616443_Focus_on_Form_Approach_i n_an_EFL_Contextspa
dc.relation.referencesSakrak-Ekin, G. y Balçıkanlı, C. (2019). Written corrective feedback: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal. 19(1), 114128. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341287146_Written_Corrective_Feedbac k_EFL_Teachers'_Beliefs_and_Practicesspa
dc.relation.referencesSchachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89-102.spa
dc.relation.referencesSchulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions Concerning the Role of Grammar Teaching and Corrective Feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 244-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/00267902.00107spa
dc.relation.referencesScott, S., y Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural Theory. Retrieved from Education.com: www.education.comspa
dc.relation.referencesSheen, R. (2002). 'Focus on form' and 'focus on forms'. ELT Journal, 56(3), 303-305. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.3.303spa
dc.relation.referencesSheen, Y. y Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol. 2. Routledge, 593–610.spa
dc.relation.referencesSheppard, C. (1998). The role of feedback in the SLA process. Journal of Chiba University Eurasian Societyspa
dc.relation.referencesShintani, N., y Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011spa
dc.relation.referencesSomekh, B. (2006). Action research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesSommers, N. (1980). Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. College Composition And Communication, 31(4), 378. doi: 10.2307/356588spa
dc.relation.referencesSommers, N. (1982). Responding to Student Writing. College Composition And Communication, 33(2), 148. doi: 10.2307/357622spa
dc.relation.referencesStorch, N., y Wigglesworth, G. (2010). LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING. Studies In Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. doi: 10.1017/s0272263109990532spa
dc.relation.referencesStraub, R. (1997): “Student’s Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study”. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119spa
dc.relation.referencesStrauss, A. L., y Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publicationsspa
dc.relation.referencesSusser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 31-47. doi: 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90004-3spa
dc.relation.referencesSwain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, y B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesSwain, 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). Oxford University Pressspa
dc.relation.referencesTobar, S. (2015). Retroalimentación del error en la producción escrita: un estudio de caso. Recuperado de https://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/15761spa
dc.relation.referencesTran, T.H. (2013). Approaches to treating student written errors. A paper presented at MIDTESOL Conference, Lawrence, Kansasspa
dc.relation.referencesTruscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6spa
dc.relation.referencesUr, P. (2009). Grammar teaching: Research, theory and practice. In Hinkel, E. (ed), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol. 2. Routledge, 593-610spa
dc.relation.referencesVicente, L. (2011): “La atención a la forma del discurso escrito de aprendices de E/LE en el contexto universitario hongkonés”, ponencia presentada en IV Jornadas de Formación de Profesores de Español como Lengua Extranjera en China: Didáctica y Materiales en el Aula de E/LE, China, Pekín, http://sinoele.org/images/Congresos/IVJornadas/Actas/vicente_100-133.pdf [Consulta: 5 de mayo de 2016]spa
dc.relation.referencesVygotsky, L. S. (1987). Cognition and language. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (R. W. Rieber y A. S. Carton, Eds.). Plenum Press.spa
dc.relation.referencesWasoh, F. E. (20 13). Students response to expert feedback on multiple-draft compositions in writing classroom. Retrieved from http://www.fllt2013.org/private folder/Proceeding/483.pdfspa
dc.relation.referencesWilliams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007spa
dc.relation.referencesZamel, V. (1985). Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79. doi: 10.2307/3586773spa
dc.relation.referencesZohrabi, M., y Rezaie, P. (2012). The role of form-focused feedback on developing students’ writing skill. Theory and Practice in language Studies, 2(7), 15141519. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.7.1514-1519. [ Links ]spa
dc.contributor.cvlachttps://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0000660787*
dc.contributor.googlescholarhttps://scholar.google.es/citations?hl=es&user=Au96B4MAAAAJ*
dc.contributor.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6373-6072*
dc.contributor.researchgatehttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erika_More12*
dc.subject.lembEducaciónspa
dc.subject.lembCalidad de la educaciónspa
dc.subject.lembEnseñanza inglésspa
dc.subject.lembEducación superiorspa
dc.subject.lembMétodos de enseñanzaspa
dc.identifier.repourlrepourl:https://repository.unab.edu.cospa
dc.description.abstractenglishThis research study aims to analyze the preferences of undergraduate students in an A1 level EFL class, regarding the provision of focused direct and indirect metalinguistic written corrective feedback to improve grammar accuracy in the use of the past simple tense and comparative adjectives when carrying out the revision and edition process of written paragraphs. This investigation is considered a qualitative study and adheres to the action research methodology guidelines. The sample was composed of a total of 15 undergraduate students from a public university located in the city of Bucaramanga in Colombia. Two data collection instruments were designed to elicit information about the students’ preferences in terms of the provision and use of written corrective feedback strategies. The study was completed in seven stages which included carrying out two writing tasks, providing feedback, revising, editing and responding to an open question questionnaire. The results made it possible to identify the two corrective feedback strategies used as effective tools when aiming to improve grammar accuracy in the targeted linguistic errors. However, a greater preference was observed for the use of focused indirect metalinguistic corrective feedback, which allowed students to analyze their errors, the grammar rules associated to them and to correct texts effectively in the revision and edition process. Finally, conclusions were drawn that investigating students’ preferences concerning the provision of corrective feedback is of great importance as a way to address their needs and select useful and comprehensible strategies.eng
dc.subject.proposalLengua extranjeraspa
dc.subject.proposalRetroalimentación correctivaspa
dc.subject.proposalRetroalimentación focalizadaspa
dc.subject.proposalPrecisión gramaticalspa
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TM
dc.rights.creativecommonsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia*


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia