Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

The role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage

dc.contributor.advisorAnderson, Carl Edlund
dc.contributor.authorPrieto Serrato, Luis Fernando
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-03T14:13:20Z
dc.date.available2019-12-03T14:13:20Z
dc.date.issued2019-10-24
dc.identifier.citation7 things you should know about Google Apps. (2008). Educause. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7035.pdfeng
dc.identifier.citationA2 Key for Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-andtests/key-for-schools/eng
dc.identifier.citationAdams, R., Nuevo, A., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner – learner interactions? The Modern Language Journal, 95, 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2011.01242.xeng
dc.identifier.citationAgusten Llach, M. P. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.eng
dc.identifier.citationAllwright, D. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach: The interaction hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton & D. G. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3–18). Dublin, IR: IRAALeng
dc.identifier.citationAnjarwati, R. (2017). The effect of peer feedback on students’ writing. SELL Journal, 2(2), 137– 144eng
dc.identifier.citationAzizian, E., & Rouhi, A. (2015). The effect of corrective feedback on the writing accuracy of feedback givers and receivers. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(17), 21–41.eng
dc.identifier.citationBaleghizadeh, S., & Gordani, Y. (2012). Academic writing and grammatical accuracy: The role of corrective feedback. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 6, 159–176.eng
dc.identifier.citationBartram, M., & Walton, R. (1991). Correction: A positive approach to language mistakes. Hove, UK: Language Teaching.eng
dc.identifier.citationBenson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21– 40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003958eng
dc.identifier.citationBijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v3i4.4314eng
dc.identifier.citationBrandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ perferences for error feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 194–211.eng
dc.identifier.citationBrown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.eng
dc.identifier.citationBurns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.005eng
dc.identifier.citationButler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311405999eng
dc.identifier.citationCanh, L. Van. (2016). Teaching listening in mixed-ability classes. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 5(2), 73–82.eng
dc.identifier.citationChan, W. M., Chin, K. N., Nagami, M., & Suthiwan, T. (2011). Processes and processorientation in foreign language teaching and learning: An introduction. In W. M. Chan, K. N. Chin, M. Nagami, & T. Suthiwan (Eds.), Processes and process-orientation in foreign language teaching and learning (pp. 1–18). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Moutoneng
dc.identifier.citationChanski, S., & Ellis, L. (2017). Which helps writers more, receiving peer feedback or giving it? English Journal, 6(106), 54–60.eng
dc.identifier.citationChickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education, 3, 3–7.eng
dc.identifier.citationChomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.eng
dc.identifier.citationChu, S. K., Kennedy, D., & Mak, Y. (2009). MediaWiki and Google Docs as online collaboration tools for group project co-construction. In The 6th International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM 2009). Hong Kong, Chinaeng
dc.identifier.citationConner, N. (2008). Google Apps: the missing manual. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.eng
dc.identifier.citationCorbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGEeng
dc.identifier.citationCouncil of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000221eng
dc.identifier.citationCovaleski, R. (2018). Word processor. In Salem Press Encyclopedia.eng
dc.identifier.citationCreswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.eng
dc.identifier.citationCreswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004eng
dc.identifier.citationCreswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.eng
dc.identifier.citationCummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2, 71–83.eng
dc.identifier.citationDagenais, D., Walsh, N., Armand, F., & Maraillet, E. (2008). Collaboration and co-construction of knowledge during language awareness activities in canadian elementary school. Language Awareness, 17(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.2167/la442.0eng
dc.identifier.citationDooley, D. (2001). Social research methods (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educationeng
dc.identifier.citationEl-Koumy, A. S. (1997). Exploring the reading-writing relationship in NES and EFL students. Language & Linguistics. ERIC. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED413781eng
dc.identifier.citationElbow, P. (1999). Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Presseng
dc.identifier.citationEllis, R. (2012). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.eng
dc.identifier.citationEvans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., Cox, T. L., & Martin de Jel, T. (2014). Measuring written linguistic accuracy with weighted clause ratios: A question of validity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.02.005eng
dc.identifier.citationEveraert, M. B. H., Huybregts, M. A. C., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., Tattersall, I., Moro, A., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). What is language and how could it have evolved? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 569–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.007eng
dc.identifier.citationFerrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: Brown University. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083716eng
dc.identifier.citationFlyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245eng
dc.identifier.citationFraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.eng
dc.identifier.citationFrancis, W. S., Romo, L. F., & Gelman, R. (2002). Syntactic structure, grammatical accuracy, and content in second-language writing: An analysis of skill learning and on-line processing. Advances in Psychology, 134, 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01664115(02)80017-6eng
dc.identifier.citationGibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588504eng
dc.identifier.citationGibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 2004–05(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/1742?240Xeng
dc.identifier.citationGielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring the peer assessment process: A multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12096eng
dc.identifier.citationGielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007eng
dc.identifier.citationGralla, P. (2010). Google Docs better: Ready to take on office? Retrieved November 13, 2017, from https://www.cio.com/article/2418764/microsoft-office/google-docs-better--ready-totake-on-office-.htmleng
dc.identifier.citationGuardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24, 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002eng
dc.identifier.citationHalliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, UK: Edward Arnold.eng
dc.identifier.citationHammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and accuracy: Toward balance in language teaching and learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.eng
dc.identifier.citationHarmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson Education.eng
dc.identifier.citationHarmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Educationeng
dc.identifier.citationHattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03542.xeng
dc.identifier.citationHousen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048eng
dc.identifier.citationHousen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.eng
dc.identifier.citationHousen, A., Vedder, I., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.eng
dc.identifier.citationHyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833729eng
dc.identifier.citationHyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399eng
dc.identifier.citationInternational Baccalaureate Organization. (2007). Making the PYP happen: A curriculum framework for international primary education. Cardiff, UK: International Baccalaureate Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004eng
dc.identifier.citationJacobs, G., & Zhang, S. (1989). Peer feedback in second language writing instruction: Boon or bane? In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii.eng
dc.identifier.citationJarvis, S. (2013). Defining and measuring lexical diversity. In S. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 13–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.eng
dc.identifier.citationJones, H. (2008). Thoughts on teaching thinking: perceptions of practitioners with a shared culture of thinking skills education. Curriculum Journal, 19(4), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170802509898eng
dc.identifier.citationKaiser, D. H. (2016). The importance of writing (and writing well). Art Therapy, 33(1), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2016.1132100eng
dc.identifier.citationKemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Deakin University (3rd ed.). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2eng
dc.identifier.citationKim, S. H. (2015). Preparing English learners for effective peer review in the writers’ workshop. Reading Teacher, 68(8), 599–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1358eng
dc.identifier.citationKoshy, V. (2010). Action research for improving educational practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.eng
dc.identifier.citationKuhi, D., Rasuli, M. A., & Deylami, Z. (2014). The effect of type of writing on accuracy, fluency and complexity across proficiency. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1036–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.514eng
dc.identifier.citationKulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.eng
dc.identifier.citationKumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00591-6eng
dc.identifier.citationLahuerta, A. (2017). Analysis of accuracy in the writing of EFL students enrolled on CLIL and non-CLIL programmes: the impact of grade and gender. The Language Learning Journal, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745eng
dc.identifier.citationLahuerta, A. C. (2018). Study of accuracy and grammatical complexity in EFL writing. International Journal of English Studies, 18(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/1/258971eng
dc.identifier.citationLam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal2, 27(2), 114–127eng
dc.identifier.citationLipson, M. Y., Mosenthal, J., Daniels, P., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2000). Process writing in the classrooms of eleven fifth-grade teachers with different orientations to teaching and learning. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 209–231. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002343eng
dc.identifier.citationLiu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582eng
dc.identifier.citationLiu, N., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2eng
dc.identifier.citationLiu, X., & Li, L. (2014). Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.823540eng
dc.identifier.citationLuo, Y., & Liu, Y. (2017). Comparison between peer feedback and automated feedback in college English writing: A case study. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 07(04), 197– 215. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2017.74015eng
dc.identifier.citationMcMillan, J. H. (2016). Fundamentals of educational research (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.03728-14eng
dc.identifier.citationMedgyes, P., & Nikolov, M. (2002). Curriculum development: The interface between political and professional decisions. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 195–206). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.eng
dc.identifier.citationMeliha, R. Ş., & Dündar, E. (2018). Particularised checklists in materials evaluation: Developing contextually relevant criteria for Turkish EFL classes. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(3), 154–189.eng
dc.identifier.citationMills, G. E., Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.eng
dc.identifier.citationMoos, A., & Holder, C. (1988). Improving student writing: A guidebook for faculty all disciplines. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.eng
dc.identifier.citationMory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 745–783). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.eng
dc.identifier.citationNeuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.eng
dc.identifier.citationNicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090eng
dc.identifier.citationNilson, L. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596408eng
dc.identifier.citationNorton, B., & Toohey, K. (2002). Identity and language learning. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 115–123). New York, NY: Oxford University Presseng
dc.identifier.citationNorum, K. E. (2008). Artifacts. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 294–297). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909eng
dc.identifier.citationNosratinia, M., & Razavi, F. (2016). Writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency among EFL learners: Inspecting their interaction with learners’ degree of creativity. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(5), 1043–1052. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0605.19eng
dc.identifier.citationNunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012924eng
dc.identifier.citationNunan, D. (2007). What is this thing called language? New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.eng
dc.identifier.citationO’Grady, W., & Sook, W. C. (2001). First language acquisition. In W. O’Grady, M. Dobrovolsky, & F. Katamba (Eds.), Contemporary Linguistics: An introduction (pp. 326– 362). London, NY: Longman.eng
dc.identifier.citationOishi, L. (2007). Google Apps goes to school. Technology & Learning, 27(9), 46–47. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/news/0002/working-together/56727eng
dc.identifier.citationOsmani, O., Pajaziti, F., & Terziu, L. (2017). Developing students’ writing skill through peer feedback. Balkan Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(1), 385–394.eng
dc.identifier.citationPallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045eng
dc.identifier.citationPerrin, D., & Jakobs, E.-M. (2014). Handbook of Writing and Text Production. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220674eng
dc.identifier.citationPolio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003eng
dc.identifier.citationPolio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003eng
dc.identifier.citationQuinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: Using feedback to promote student reflection and learning - a teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525911eng
dc.identifier.citationRiaño Casallas, R. D. (2013). Fortalecimiento de las habilidades de pensamiento de orden superior: Analizar, evaluar y crear, a través del uso de herramientas digitales, en estudiantes de sexto grado del Colegio Gimnasio del Norte. Tesis. Universida de La Sabana. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0124-00642012000800004eng
dc.identifier.citationRichards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473293eng
dc.identifier.citationRienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google Web 2.0 tools for course management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 123–127. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.georgetowncollege.edu:2048/login?URL=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.a spx?direct=true&db=lxh&AN=42008991eng
dc.identifier.citationRollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003eng
dc.identifier.citationRuby Yang, C. C. (2010). Using Google Docs to facilitate collaborative writing in an English language classroom practice. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 14(3). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume14/ej55/ej55m1/eng
dc.identifier.citationSaadi, Z. K., & Saadat, M. (2015). EFL learners’ writing accuracy: Effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2053– 2063. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.11eng
dc.identifier.citationSadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.eng
dc.identifier.citationSaeed, M. A., Ghazali, K., Sahuri, S., & Abdulrab, M. (2018). Engaging EFL learners in online peer feedback on writing: What does it tell us? Journal of Information Technology Education, 17, 39–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.28945/3980eng
dc.identifier.citationSagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.eng
dc.identifier.citationSaldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.eng
dc.identifier.citationSato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.xeng
dc.identifier.citationSchroeder, J. (2013). Students’ accuracy in written English under the impression of the new “G8” system: A case study. Hamburg, Gernamy: Bachelor + Master Publishing.eng
dc.identifier.citationSchunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004eng
dc.identifier.citationSeyyedrezaie, Z. S., Ghonsooly, B., Shahriari, H., & Fatemi, A. H. (2016). A mixed methods analysis of the effect of Google Docs environment on efl learners’ writing performance and causal attributions for success and failure. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 90–110. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.34418eng
dc.identifier.citationShafiee Sarvestani, M., & Pishkar, K. (2015). The effect of written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL students’ writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2046–2052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.186eng
dc.identifier.citationShute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153– 189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795eng
dc.identifier.citationSkehan, P., & Foster, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task-type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.eng
dc.identifier.citationSkinner, B. (1957). Verbal behavior (Vol. 35). Cambridge, MA: Prentice-Hall.eng
dc.identifier.citationSoltanpour, F., & Valizadeh, M. (2018). Revision-mediated and attention-mediated feedback: Effects on EFL learners’ written syntactic accuracy. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(4), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.83eng
dc.identifier.citationStringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.eng
dc.identifier.citationSuddath, C. (2009). Mourning the death of handwriting. Time Magazine, 174(4). Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1912419,00.htmleng
dc.identifier.citationSuwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google Docs on students’ writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 13(2005), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n3p175eng
dc.identifier.citationTonkyn, A. (2012). Measuring and perceiving changes in oral complexity, accuracy and fluency: Examining instructed learners’ short-term gains. In Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and Fluency in SLA (pp. 221–245). Amsterdam: John Benjaminseng
dc.identifier.citationTopping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569eng
dc.identifier.citationTopping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428eng
dc.identifier.citationTracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.eng
dc.identifier.citationTsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022- 9eng
dc.identifier.citationTudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.eng
dc.identifier.citationUbilla Rosales, L., Gómez Álvarez, L., & Sáez Carrillo, K. (2017). Escritura colaborativa de textos argumentativos en inglés usando Google Drive. Estudios Pedagógicos, 43(1), 331– 348spa
dc.identifier.citationVallance, M., Towndrow, P. A., & Wiz, C. (2010). Conditions for successful online document collaboration. TechTrends, 54(1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0359-6eng
dc.identifier.citationVygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.eng
dc.identifier.citationWalker, M. (2015). The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.898737eng
dc.identifier.citationWallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.eng
dc.identifier.citationWhite, R. V. (1993). Innovation in curriculum planning and program development. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 244–259.eng
dc.identifier.citationWolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.eng
dc.identifier.citationXu, Q., & Yu, S. (2018). An action research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) peer feedback in EFL writing context. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0379-0eng
dc.identifier.citationXu, Y., Gelfer, J., & Perkins, P. (2005). Using peer tutoring to increase social interactions in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 83–106.eng
dc.identifier.citationYarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158514eng
dc.identifier.citationYildirim, T. (2014). Teaching writing. In D. Yuksel & B. Inan (Eds.), Teaching language skills (pp. 113–134). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.eng
dc.identifier.citationYılmaz, M. (2016). Improving Turkish EFL learners’ writing accuracy: Effects of written languaging and languaging type. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232(April), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.057eng
dc.identifier.citationZhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359–375. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/eng
dc.identifier.citationZhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: an examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362– 386. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.22eng
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10818/38576
dc.description140 páginases_CO
dc.description.abstractThis research project aims to analyze the role of peer feedback through an online word processor in the improvement of simple past tense usage, with 10 to 12-year-old fifth-graders from a private Colombian bilingual school. The students are classified at the A2 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), and after the analysis of various writing samples, their difficulties to use the simple past tense in written texts were evident. This project tracks their improvement in using the simple past tense accurately, as a result of collaborative work and peer feedback received from one another, when writing narrative texts, on an online word processor (Google Docs). The analysis of the data obtained during the implementation process through surveys, artifacts, checklists, semi-structured interviews, and a researcher’s journal suggests that the participants improved their accuracy in the usage of verbs in the simple past tense when writing thanks to the peer feedback strategy provided through the selected online word processor. Additionally, the participants increased their lexical variety and language awareness. Further research would enrich the discussion about the role of social interaction in the co-construction of knowledge regarding accuracy, as well as in the development of lexical variety.es_CO
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_CO
dc.language.isoenges_CO
dc.publisherUniversidad de La Sabanaes_CO
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.sourceUniversidad de La Sabana
dc.sourceIntellectum Repositorio Universidad de La Sabana
dc.subjectTecnología educativaes_CO
dc.subjectEditores de texto (Programas para computador)es_CO
dc.subjectEscrituraes_CO
dc.subjectAprendizajees_CO
dc.subjectLenguaje y lenguases_CO
dc.titleThe role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usagees_CO
dc.typemasterThesises_CO
dc.publisher.programMaestría en Didáctica del Inglés con Énfasis en Ambientes de Aprendizaje Autónomoes_CO
dc.publisher.departmentDepartamento de Lenguas y Culturas Extranjerases_CO
dc.identifier.local275279es_CO
dc.identifier.localTE10474
dc.type.hasVersionpublishedVersiones_CO
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses_CO
dc.creator.degreeMagíster en Didáctica del Inglés con Énfasis en Ambientes de Aprendizaje Autónomoes_CO


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre:
Tesis Luis Fernando Prieto ...
Tamaño:
1.224Mb
Formato:
PDF
Descripción:
Ver documento en PDF
Ver/

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 InternationalExcepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International