medigraphic.com

2014, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Elec Psic Izt 2014; 17 (3)

Effects of differential consequences in text elaboration by university students

Ortega GM, Pacheco CV, Carpio RC

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 1254-1281
PDF size: 709.03 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Developing writer’s interactions starts with conventional morphological adjustment graphs, reaches mediate interaction with other than what is written, and culminates in those interactions that mediate linguistic segments to give a new segment According to a particular conventional system. In this clinical course the consequences provided the writer, are a key to the performance of the latter factor. In the present study the effects of presenting different consequences (executive, corrective and / or Exemplary) on the accuracy and consistency of own texts in university were evaluated. 20 participants described various geometric figures. After various consequences were provided by Group Executive (e), and Corrective Executive (CE), Executive, Corrective and example (ECE) and No Impact (N). Finally they were asked to develop the consequences his own writings. The results suggest the differential involvement in behavior in those groups receiving only consequences. The ECE group which was developed more extensive and more accurate texts. Based on the results we discuss an alternative course of development of the writer’s interactions.


REFERENCES

  1. Alvarado, M. & Silvestri, A. (2003). La composición escrita: procesos y enseñanza. Cultura y Educación, 15, 1, 7-15.

  2. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  3. Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005).The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191- 205.

  4. Carlino, P. (2002). “Enseñar a escribir en la universidad. Cómo lo hacen en Estados Unidos y por qué”. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, versión digital, agosto (2002). Disponible en Internet en: http://www.campusoei.org/revista/deloslectores/279carlino.pdf

  5. Dorow, L. G., & Boyle, M. E. (1998). Instructor feedback for college writing assignments in introductory classes. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 115-129.

  6. Hayes, J. & Flowers, L. (1980). Identifying Organization of Writing Process. Cognitve process in Writting, New York, LEA.

  7. Hillocks, G. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the teaching English, 16, 3, 261- 278.

  8. Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System.31, 2, 217- 230.

  9. Pacheco, V. (2011). ¿Se enseña a escribir a los universitarios? Análisis y propuestas desde la Teoría de la Conducta. México: UNAM.

  10. Pacheco, V., Ortega, M. & Carpio, C. (2011). Composición escrita en universitarios: papel del contacto visual en la revisión de textos. Suma Psicológica, 18, 2, 29-40.

  11. Pacheco, V., Ortega, M. & Carpio, C. (2013). Efectos de la respuesta del lector y el uso de ejemplos sobre la composición de textos. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 22, 1, 13-34.

  12. Pacheco, V., Ortega, M., Morales, G. & Carpio, C. (2013). Escribo, luego existo: reflexiones acerca de la autorreferencia. En Pacheco, V., Ortega, M., Morales, G. & Carpio: La Autorreferencia. Promoción de comportamiento complejo desde diferentes perspectivas conceptuales (pp. 55-76). México: UNAM.

  13. Sato, K. & Matsushima, K. (2006). Effects of audience awareness on procedural text writing. Psychological Reports, 99, 1, 51- 7.

  14. Semke, H. (1984). Effects of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 3, 195- 202.

  15. Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66, 1, 53-86.

  16. Vigotsky, L. (1934 / trad esp.1988). Pensamiento y lenguaje. México. Quinto sol.

  17. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding To Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697-715.

  18. Zimmerman, B. & Kitsantas, A. (2002) Acquiring Writing Revision and Self- Regulatory Skill Thorough Observation and Emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 4, 660-668.

  19. Zimmerman, B. & Risemberg, R. (1997). Research for the future.Becoming a selfregulated writer: a social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101.

  20. Ziv, N.D. (1984). The effect of teacher comments on the writing of four college freshmen. In R. Beach and L.S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 362-380). New York: The Guilford Press.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com