masterThesis
The role of peer feedback in oral communicative tasks for young adult learners
Fecha
2012-08-14Registro en:
Ano, K. 1998. A Study of the Output Hypothesis: Cognitive Processes of Speaking a Foreign Language. Journal
of Japan – Korea Association of Applied Linguistics Volume 2, 175-204
Auerbach, C. F. and Silverstein L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis. New York,
USA: NYU Press
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84, 191-215.
Boud, D. 1990. Assessment and the promotion of academic values, Studies in Higher Education 15,
110-113.
Brown, C. 1995. A question of action. In Riddell.
Brown, H. D. 1998. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains: Pearson Education
Boughey, C. 1997. Learning to write by writing to learn.: A group work approach. ELT Journal Volume
51/2 April 1997. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
Language Teaching Library.
Bygate, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carter, B. 2001. From awareness to counseling in learner autonomy. AILA Review, 15, 26-33
Carr, W. and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Knowing through Action Research. Geelong,
Victoria: Deakin University.
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. 1999. Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group
project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 3, 301 – 314.
Chia, C. 2005. Promoting Independent Learning through language learning and the use of IT.
Educational Media International, Dec2005, Vol. 42 Issue 4, p317-332, 16p.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research 3e. Sage Publications.
Cotterall, S. 2000. Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: principles for designing
language courses. ELT Journal Volume 54/2 April 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enright, D. S. and McCloskey and Savignon, S. J. 1988. Integrating English. Addison-Wesley
Freed, B. 1995. What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. Freed (ed.)
Second language acquisition in a Study abroad. Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Fulcher, G. 1996. Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale
construction. Language Testing 13 (2), 208-238.
Gass, S. 2003. Input and interaction. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 224 – 255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., and Pica, T. 1998. The role of input and interaction in second language
acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. Modern Language Journal., 82, 299-307.
Gass, S., and Varonis, E. 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302.
Gibbs, G. and Simpson, 2004. Conditions under which assessment supports students´ learning, Learning
and Teaching In Higher Education, 1, 3-31
Gielen, S.; Tops, L.; Dochy, F.; Onghena, P.; Smeets, S; 2010. A comparative study of peer and teacher
feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. ISSN
0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online), 2010 British Educational Research Association.
Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (First published 1979,
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.)
Higgins, R. 2000. Be more critical!”: Rethinking assessment feedback. Paper presented at the British
Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, Wales, 7 – 10 September.
Hounsell, D. 1987. Essay writing and the quality of feedback, in: J. Richardson, M. W. Eysenck and D.
W. Piper (Eds) Student learning: research in education and cognitive psychology (Milton
Keynes, Open University Press).
Hopkins, D. 1993. A teacher´s guide to classroom research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Lee, I. 2009. Feedback revolution: What gets in the way? ELT Journal Advance Access. April 2009
Leung, D,Y,P,, and Kember, D. 2003, The relationship between approaches to learning and reflection
upon practice, Educational Psychology, 2i(l),61-71.
Lewin, K. 1946. Action Research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2:34 - 46.
Li, L., Liu, X. and Steckelberg, A. L. 2010. Assessor or assessee: How students learning improves by
giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol 41 No 3
2010.
Liu, N. and Carless, D. 2006. Peer Feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in
Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, July 2006, pages 279-290.
Luoma, S. 2004. Assessing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lobatón, J. C. 2010. Peer Interaction: A social perspective towards the development of foreign language
learning. Retrieved from Profile. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencas
Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and
T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Luzzo, Darrell Anthony. 1996. Journal of Counseling and Development, Jan/Feb96, Vol. 74 Issue 3, p.
McKernan, J. 1996. Curriculum Action Research. A Handbook of Methods and Resources for the
Reflective Practitioner. Second edition. London: Kogan Page.
Nassaji, H. 2009. Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback
explicitness. Language Learning. Volume 59, Number 2, June 2009 , pp. 411-452(42). Publisher:
Blackwell Publishing.
Nation, I.S.P and Newton, J. 2009. Teaching ESL and EFL Listening and Speaking. New York:
Routledge.
Nicol, D. and MacFarlane, D. 2006. Formative Assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and
seven principals of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education.
Nilson, Linda B..2003. College Teaching, Winter2003, Vol. 51 Issue 1, p34, 5p.
Ngar-Fun L.; Carless, D. Teaching in Higher Education, Jul2006, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p279-290, 12p, 2
Charts; DOI: 10.1080/13562510600680582
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions,
processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527
Pica, T. 1996. Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching. 34, 1-21
Phan, Huy P. 2010 Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. .
Psicothema, , Vol. 22 Issue 2, p284-292, 9p;
Richards, C. R. and Rodgers, T. S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in language teaching. Cambrigde:
Cambridge University Press.
Rollinson, P. 1998. Peer response and revision in an ESL writing group. Unpublished Phd thesis.
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid
Rollinson, P. 2005. Using Peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT J (2005) 59(1): 23-30
doi:10.1093/elt/cci003
Seliger, H. W.. Shohamy, E. G. 1990. Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford Univerity
Press.
Siewert, L. 2011. The effects of written teacher feedback on the academic achievements of fifth-grade
students with learning challenges. Preventing School Failure. Vol. 55, Issue 1, page 17 – 27.
Sullivan K. and Hall, C. 1997. Introducing Students to Self-assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 22, 289 - 305
Stefani, L. A. J. 1994. Peer, self and tutor assessment: relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education,
19, 1, 69 – 75.
Stern, H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strauss, A. 1991. The Chicago tradition´s ongoing theory of action/interaction. In Strauss (Ed.),
Creating sociological awareness (pp. 3-32). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers
Tavakoli, P., and Skehan, P. 2005. Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R.
Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, (pp. 239-273).
Philadelphia:John Benjamins
Tavakoli, P. 2011. Pausing Patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers. ELT Journal
Volume 65/1 January 2011; doi:10.1093/elt/ccq020.
Thornbury, S. 2005. How to teach Speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Topping, K. J. 2003. Self- and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility,
in: M. Segers, F. Dochy and E. Cascallar (Eps) Otimizing new modes of assessment: in search of
qualities and standards (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic)
Vigil, N., and Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language learning, 26, 281-295
Vivanco, Verónica.2009 Holistic Versus communicative approach in assessing oral production in
English.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. 1988. Ethnography in ESL: defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22:575-92.
Wallace, M.J. 1998. Action Research for Language Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wen, M. L. and Tsai, C. 2006. University Students´ perceptions of and attitudes towards (online) peer
assessment. Higher Education (2006) 51: 27-44
Wood, 2001. In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it? Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57, 573-589
Yang, M., Badger, R. and Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese
writing class, Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200
Zhang, S. 1995. “Re-examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class”.
Journal of Second Language Writing 4/3:209-22.
157711
TE05543
Autor
Maldonado Chacón, Pedro Pablo
Institución
Resumen
Este estudio investigó los efectos de la retroalimentación entre compañeros en la variedad léxica como parte de las habilidades comunicativas para jóvenes adultos aprendices de la lengua inglesa. Los 16 participantes trabajaron en una variedad de tareas comunicativas con rúbricas para la retroalimentación entre compañeros. Los datos se recolectaron mediante una encuesta, reflexiones de los estudiantes y grupos focales, y posteriormente se analizó la información teniendo en cuenta la Teoría Fundamentada en Datos (Grounded Theory). Los resultados indicaron que la auto-eficacia de los estudiantes y la efectividad de la retroalimentación entre compañeros están muy relacionadas. El proyecto demostró que la retroalimentación entre compañeros permitió a los estudiantes involucrarse activamente en las tareas comunicativas y ser más independientes en su proceso de aprendizaje.