Retroalimentación correctiva escrita: análisis descriptivo de las preferencias de los estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera

Sarmiento Muñoz, Jesica Vanessa

DSpace Principal
→
Colección de los Centros Asociados
→
Colombia
→
Instituto de Estudios Políticos - IEP - Cosecha
→
Ver ítem

dc.contributor	Moreno Bueno, Erika Zulay
dc.contributor	https://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0000660787
dc.contributor	https://scholar.google.es/citations?hl=es&user=Au96B4MAAAAJ
dc.contributor	https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6373-6072
dc.contributor	https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erika_More12
dc.creator	Sarmiento Muñoz, Jesica Vanessa
dc.date	2021-01-18T17:46:52Z
dc.date	2021-01-18T17:46:52Z
dc.date	2020
dc.date.accessioned	2022-03-14T18:51:28Z
dc.date.available	2022-03-14T18:51:28Z
dc.identifier	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12749/11998
dc.identifier	instname:Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga - UNAB
dc.identifier	reponame:Repositorio Institucional UNAB
dc.identifier	repourl:https://repository.unab.edu.co
dc.identifier.uri	http://biblioteca-repositorio.clacso.edu.ar/handle/CLACSO/19272
dc.description	La 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.
dc.description	INTRODUCCIÓN .................................................................................................................... 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 ............................................................................................................................. 137
dc.description	Maestría
dc.description	This 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.
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.language	spa
dc.publisher	Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNAB
dc.publisher	Facultad Ciencias Sociales, Humanidades y Artes
dc.publisher	Maestría en Educación
dc.relation	Afitska, 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 0957-1736
dc.relation	Alamis, M. (2010). Evaluating students’ reactions and responses to teachers’ written feedbacks. Philippine ESL Journal, 5, 40-57.
dc.relation	Al-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.pdf
dc.relation	Al-Jarrah, R. (2016). A suggested model of corrective feedback provision. Ampersand, 3, 98-107. doi: 10.1016/j.amper.2016.06.003
dc.relation	Amrhein, 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
dc.relation	Alkhatib, 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..pd
dc.relation	Angus, 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.pdf
dc.relation	Beigi 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.
dc.relation	Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33(1),71-84
dc.relation	Bitchener, 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), 191-205. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
dc.relation	Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
dc.relation	Bitchener, 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.2008.12.006
dc.relation	Black, 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-2016-1603-07
dc.relation	Brice, 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, CA
dc.relation	Brookhart, S. (2008) How to give effective feedback to your students /Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
dc.relation	Burns, 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)
dc.relation	Burt, M. (1975). Error Analysis in the Adult EFL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53-63. doi:10.2307/3586012
dc.relation	Cáceres, C. (2016). El efecto del Feedback Correctivo Escrito (FCE) metalingüístico Directo e Indirecto en la precisión ortográfica. Recuperado de http://repositorio.udec.cl/handle/11594/2055
dc.relation	Cáceres, P. (2003). Análisis cualitativo de contenido: Una alternativa metodológica alcanzable. Psico perspectivas, 2, 53 - 82.
dc.relation	Carrillo 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.index-f.com/index-enfermeria/v20n1-2/7441.php (acceso: 29/12/2015).
dc.relation	Chandler, 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)00038-9
dc.relation	Chieng, 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/5447/
dc.relation	Cohen, A. (1989). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing. Guidelines, 11(2), 1-9
dc.relation	Cohen, 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
dc.relation	CONSEJO DE EUROPA 2002 (2001): Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. (traducido por el Instituto Cervantes 2002) Madrid, Anaya
dc.relation	Corder, 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.1967.5.1-4.161
dc.relation	Corpuz, 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.pdf
dc.relation	Costello, P. (2007). Action research. Continuum
dc.relation	Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education.
dc.relation	Cuxim, 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/20.500.12249/1584
dc.relation	D. Rowe, A., y N. Wood, L. (2009). Students’ perceptions and preferences for feedback. Asian Social Science, 4(3). doi: 10.5539/ass.v4n3p78
dc.relation	Efron, S. E., y Ravid, R. (2013). Action research in education: A practical guide. The Guilford Press
dc.relation	Elliott, J. (1990). La investigación-acción en educación. Morata
dc.relation	Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and Research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 39. doi: 10.2307/3587901
dc.relation	Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x
dc.relation	Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
dc.relation	Ellis, 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.2008.02.001
dc.relation	Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/12.vlol.9054
dc.relation	Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2), 335–3
dc.relation	Ellis, R. (2013). Corrective feedback in teacher guides and SLA. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 1-18.
dc.relation	Ellis, 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.46061
dc.relation	Eslami, 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.2014.03.438
dc.relation	Fareed, M., Almas, A., y Muhammad B. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills: Problems, factors and suggestions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences 4(2), 80-92
dc.relation	Farjadnasab, 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.2.2.30
dc.relation	Fathman, 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 Press.
dc.relation	Ferrance, E. (2000). Action Research. Themes in Education. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University
dc.relation	Ferreira 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.v19n1.10220
dc.relation	Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students (1st ed.). Routledge
dc.relation	Ferris, 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.49-62.
dc.relation	Ferris, D., y Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teacher response to student writing: Issues in oral and written feedback. Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice, 184-222
dc.relation	Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003
dc.relation	Frantzen, 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.x
dc.relation	Gholaminia, 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.2014.01.214
dc.relation	Gibbs, G. (2007). El análisis de datos cualitativos. Ediciones M
dc.relation	Gillham, B. (2015). Developing a questionnaire. Bloomsbury Academic.
dc.relation	Goldstein, 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.2004.04.006
dc.relation	Gorbet. Frances. "Error Analysis: What the Teacher Can Do: A New Perspective." Research Division, Public Service Commission of Canada. November, 1974. EDRS: ED 100 193.
dc.relation	Han, 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.2015.08.002
dc.relation	Harklau, 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)000917
dc.relation	Hedgcock, 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: 10.2307/329437
dc.relation	Hendrickson, 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.x
dc.relation	Hernández, R., Fernández, C., Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la Investigación (5th ed.). Mc Graw Hill
dc.relation	Hinkel, 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)
dc.relation	Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Milton Keynes. Open University Press
dc.relation	Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230. doi: 10.1016/s0346-251x(03)00021-6
dc.relation	Hyland, K., y Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. doi: 10.1017/s0261444806003399
dc.relation	Ibarrola, A.（2009）. Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. Revista Española De Lingüística Aplicada, 22，189-215
dc.relation	Ilenguas Proyectos (2016). Manual del Instructor del Instituto de Lenguas. https://sites.google.com/site/manualdelinstructoriluis/?pli=1
dc.relation	Kamberi, 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.2013.01.241
dc.relation	Kepner, 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: 10.2307/328724
dc.relation	Khaled, 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/1828/5157
dc.relation	Kim, 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/D8BR8RPT
dc.relation	Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
dc.relation	Lantolf, J. P. 2006. “Sociocultural theory and L2”. State of the Art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 67-109
dc.relation	Lantolf, 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: Routledge.
dc.relation	Leki, 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.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
dc.relation	Lightbown, 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/s0272263100009517
dc.relation	Loewen, 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.
dc.relation	Long, 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 Press.
dc.relation	Macías, 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), 127-143
dc.relation	Martín-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_METODOLOGICA/FMetodologica_27.pdf
dc.relation	Martínez, 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/11594/207
dc.relation	McGrath, 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.
dc.relation	Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., y Saldaäna, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Third edition.). Thousand Oaks, Califorinia: SAGE Publications, Inc.
dc.relation	Monje, 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, C3.
dc.relation	Muñoz, 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/11594/24
dc.relation	Murphy, L. y Roca de Larios, J. (2014), «Feedback in Second Language Writing: An Introduction», International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 2010, pp. i-x
dc.relation	O'Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37(1), 1-28. doi: 10.1017/s0261444804002113
dc.relation	Ortiz, 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.
dc.relation	Radecki, 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)90078-4
dc.relation	Ruiz, J. (2007). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
dc.relation	Rustipa, K. (2011). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage and the implication to language teaching. Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora, 11(1).
dc.relation	Saedi, 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_in_an_EFL_Context
dc.relation	Sakrak-Ekin, G. y Balçıkanlı, C. (2019). Written corrective feedback: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal. 19(1), 114-128. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341287146_Written_Corrective_Feedback_EFL_Teachers'_Beliefs_and_Practices
dc.relation	Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89-102.
dc.relation	Schulz, 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/10.1111/0026-7902.00107
dc.relation	Scott, S., y Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural Theory. Retrieved from Education.com: www.education.com
dc.relation	Sheen, R. (2002). 'Focus on form' and 'focus on forms'. ELT Journal, 56(3), 303-305. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.3.303
dc.relation	Sheen, 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.
dc.relation	Sheppard, C. (1998). The role of feedback in the SLA process. Journal of Chiba University Eurasian Society
dc.relation	Shintani, 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.2013.03.011
dc.relation	Somekh, B. (2006). Action research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
dc.relation	Sommers, N. (1980). Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. College Composition And Communication, 31(4), 378. doi: 10.2307/356588
dc.relation	Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to Student Writing. College Composition And Communication, 33(2), 148. doi: 10.2307/357622
dc.relation	Storch, 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/s0272263109990532
dc.relation	Straub, R. (1997): “Student’s Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study”. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-11
dc.relation	Strauss, A. L., y Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
dc.relation	Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 31-47. doi: 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90004-3
dc.relation	Swain, 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 Pres
dc.relation	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). Oxford University Press
dc.relation	Tobar, S. (2015). Retroalimentación del error en la producción escrita: un estudio de caso. Recuperado de https://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/15761
dc.relation	Tran, T.H. (2013). Approaches to treating student written errors. A paper presented at MIDTESOL Conference, Lawrence, Kansas
dc.relation	Truscott, 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), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
dc.relation	Ur, P. (2009). Grammar teaching: Research, theory and practice. In Hinkel, E. (ed), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol. 2. Routledge, 593-610
dc.relation	Vicente, 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].
dc.relation	Vygotsky, 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
dc.relation	Wasoh, 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.pdf
dc.relation	Williams, 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.2012.09.007
dc.relation	Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79. doi: 10.2307/3586773
dc.relation	Zohrabi, M., y Rezaie, P. (2012). The role of form-focused feedback on developing students’ writing skill. Theory and Practice in language Studies, 2(7), 1514-1519. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.7.1514-1519. [ Links ]
dc.rights	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
dc.rights	Abierto (Texto Completo)
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights	Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	Quality in education
dc.subject	Corrective feedback
dc.subject	Foreign languages
dc.subject	Grammar accuracy
dc.subject	Metalinguistic information
dc.subject	Focused corrective feedback
dc.subject	Germanic languages
dc.subject	Higher education
dc.subject	Grammar
dc.subject	Educación
dc.subject	Calidad de la educación
dc.subject	Lenguas germánicas
dc.subject	Educación superior
dc.subject	Gramática
dc.subject	Información metalingüística
dc.subject	Lengua extranjera
dc.subject	Retroalimentación correctiva
dc.subject	Retroalimentación focalizada
dc.subject	Precisión gramatical
dc.title	Retroalimentación correctiva escrita: análisis descriptivo de las preferencias de los estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera
dc.title	Written corrective feedback: descriptive analysis of the preferences of students of English as a foreign language
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.type	Tesis
dc.type	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdcc
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.type	http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TM
dc.coverage	Bucaramanga (Santander, Colombia)