Imagen de Portada

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

140 páginas

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor Principal: Prieto Serrato, Luis Fernando
Otros Autores: Anderson, Carl Edlund
Formato: Desconocido (Unknown)
Lenguaje:Inglés (English)
Publicado: Universidad de La Sabana 2019
Materias:
Tecnología educativa
Editores de texto (Programas para computador)
Escritura
Aprendizaje
Lenguaje y lenguas
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10818/38576
id ir-10818-38576
recordtype dspace
institution Universidad de La Sabana
collection DSpace
language Inglés (English)
topic Tecnología educativa
Editores de texto (Programas para computador)
Escritura
Aprendizaje
Lenguaje y lenguas
spellingShingle Tecnología educativa
Editores de texto (Programas para computador)
Escritura
Aprendizaje
Lenguaje y lenguas
Prieto Serrato, Luis Fernando
The role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage
description 140 páginas
author2 Anderson, Carl Edlund
author_facet Anderson, Carl Edlund
Prieto Serrato, Luis Fernando
format Desconocido (Unknown)
author Prieto Serrato, Luis Fernando
author_sort Prieto Serrato, Luis Fernando
title The role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage
title_short The role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage
title_full The role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage
title_fullStr The role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage
title_full_unstemmed The role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage
title_sort role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage
publisher Universidad de La Sabana
publishDate 2019
url http://hdl.handle.net/10818/38576
_version_ 1679477627011727360
spelling ir-10818-385762020-09-04T08:44:58Z The role of peer feedback through online word processors in acquiring accuracy on simple past tense usage Prieto Serrato, Luis Fernando Anderson, Carl Edlund Tecnología educativa Editores de texto (Programas para computador) Escritura Aprendizaje Lenguaje y lenguas 140 páginas This 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. 2019-12-03T14:13:20Z 2019-12-03T14:13:20Z 2019-10-24 masterThesis publishedVersion 7 things you should know about Google Apps. (2008). Educause. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7035.pdf A2 Key for Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-andtests/key-for-schools/ Adams, 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.x Agusten Llach, M. P. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Allwright, 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: IRAAL Anjarwati, R. (2017). The effect of peer feedback on students’ writing. SELL Journal, 2(2), 137– 144 Azizian, 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. Baleghizadeh, S., & Gordani, Y. (2012). Academic writing and grammatical accuracy: The role of corrective feedback. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 6, 159–176. Bartram, M., & Walton, R. (1991). Correction: A positive approach to language mistakes. Hove, UK: Language Teaching. Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21– 40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003958 Bijami, 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.v3i4.4314 Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ perferences for error feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 194–211. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.005 Butler, 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/10.3102/0034654311405999 Canh, L. Van. (2016). Teaching listening in mixed-ability classes. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 5(2), 73–82. Chan, 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 Mouton Chanski, S., & Ellis, L. (2017). Which helps writers more, receiving peer feedback or giving it? English Journal, 6(106), 54–60. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education, 3, 3–7. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chu, 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, China Conner, N. (2008). Google Apps: the missing manual. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000221 Covaleski, R. (2018). Word processor. In Salem Press Encyclopedia. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2, 71–83. Dagenais, 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/la442.0 Dooley, D. (2001). Social research methods (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education El-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=ED413781 Elbow, P. (1999). Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Ellis, R. (2012). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Evans, 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.2014.02.005 Everaert, 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.2017.05.007 Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: Brown University. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307083716 Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245 Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Francis, 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)80017-6 Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588504 Gibbs, 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?240X Gielen, 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.12096 Gielen, 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.2009.08.007 Gralla, 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-.html Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24, 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002 Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Hammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and accuracy: Toward balance in language teaching and learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson Education. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Hattie, 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.x Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 Housen, 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. Housen, A., Vedder, I., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833729 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 International Baccalaureate Organization. (2007). Making the PYP happen: A curriculum framework for international primary education. Cardiff, UK: International Baccalaureate Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Jacobs, 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. Jarvis, 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. Jones, 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/10.1080/09585170802509898 Kaiser, D. H. (2016). The importance of writing (and writing well). Art Therapy, 33(1), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2016.1132100 Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Deakin University (3rd ed.). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2 Kim, 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.1358 Koshy, V. (2010). Action research for improving educational practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Kuhi, 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.2014.03.514 Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00591-6 Lahuerta, 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/10.1080/09571736.2017.1303745 Lahuerta, 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/2018/1/258971 Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal2, 27(2), 114–127 Lipson, 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/1002343 Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582 Liu, 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/s13398-014-0173-7.2 Liu, 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/10.1080/02602938.2013.823540 Luo, 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.2017.74015 McMillan, J. H. (2016). Fundamentals of educational research (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.03728-14 Medgyes, 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. Meliha, 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. Mills, G. E., Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Moos, A., & Holder, C. (1988). Improving student writing: A guidebook for faculty all disciplines. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing. Mory, 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. Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Nicol, 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/10.1080/03075070600572090 Nilson, L. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596408 Norton, 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 Press Norum, K. E. (2008). Artifacts. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 294–297). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909 Nosratinia, 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.0605.19 Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012924 Nunan, D. (2007). What is this thing called language? New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. O’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. Oishi, L. (2007). Google Apps goes to school. Technology & Learning, 27(9), 46–47. Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/news/0002/working-together/56727 Osmani, O., Pajaziti, F., & Terziu, L. (2017). Developing students’ writing skill through peer feedback. Balkan Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(1), 385–394. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 Perrin, D., & Jakobs, E.-M. (2014). Handbook of Writing and Text Production. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220674 Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003 Polio, 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.2014.09.003 Quinton, 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/10.1080/14703290903525911 Riaño 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/S0124-00642012000800004 Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473293 Rienzo, 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=42008991 Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003 Ruby 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/ Saadi, 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.0510.11 Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Saeed, 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/10.28945/3980 Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sato, 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.x Schroeder, J. (2013). Students’ accuracy in written English under the impression of the new “G8” system: A case study. Hamburg, Gernamy: Bachelor + Master Publishing. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Seyyedrezaie, 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.34418 Shafiee 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.2013.06.186 Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153– 189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795 Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task-type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324. Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal behavior (Vol. 35). Cambridge, MA: Prentice-Hall. Soltanpour, 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.83 Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Suddath, C. (2009). Mourning the death of handwriting. Time Magazine, 174(4). Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1912419,00.html Suwantarathip, 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.v8n3p175 Tonkyn, 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 Benjamins Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569 Topping, 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/10.1080/713611428 Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Tsui, 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- 9 Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Vallance, M., Towndrow, P. A., & Wiz, C. (2010). Conditions for successful online document collaboration. TechTrends, 54(1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0359-6 Vygotsky, 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. Walker, 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/10.1080/02602938.2014.898737 Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. White, R. V. (1993). Innovation in curriculum planning and program development. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 244–259. Wolfe-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. Xu, 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/s40299-018-0379-0 Xu, Y., Gelfer, J., & Perkins, P. (2005). Using peer tutoring to increase social interactions in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 83–106. Yarrow, 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/10.1348/000709901158514 Yildirim, T. (2014). Teaching writing. In D. Yuksel & B. Inan (Eds.), Teaching language skills (pp. 113–134). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Yılmaz, 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.2016.10.057 Zhou, 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/ Zhu, 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.22 Ubilla Rosales, L., Gómez Álvarez, L., & Sáez Carrillo, K. (2017). Escritura colaborativa de textos argumentativos en inglés usando Google Drive. Estudios Pedagógicos, 43(1), 331– 348 http://hdl.handle.net/10818/38576 275279 TE10474 eng Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ openAccess application/pdf Universidad de La Sabana Maestría en Didáctica del Inglés con Énfasis en Ambientes de Aprendizaje Autónomo Departamento de Lenguas y Culturas Extranjeras Universidad de La Sabana Intellectum Repositorio Universidad de La Sabana
score 12,131701

Ejemplares similares