Efecto del feedback correctivo directo y metalingüistico en el proceso de escritura de una L2 en el contexto escolar: estudio piloto

Abstract

RESUMENDesde los inicios de la investigación en Adquisición de Segundas Lenguas (ASL), los estudios de Feedback Correctivo Escrito (FCE) buscaron respuesta a diversas preguntas en torno al FC y en especial al escrito: las razones para corregir los errores, cuáles errores corregir, cuándo corregirlos, cómo corregirlos y por quién. Sin embargo, los estudios iniciales no se concentraron en la pregunta que es de vital importancia en esta temática el día de hoy, es decir, si el FC tiene el potencial de contribuir al desarrollo de la lengua meta (BITCHENER & FERRIS, 2012). En este artículo se informa de los resultados de un estudio piloto que aborda la efectividad del FC escrito. Los hallazgos revelan que los grupos experimentales obtuvieron mejores resultados que el grupo control en el postest escrito; sin embargo debido a ciertas limitaciones del estudio piloto, los resultados hay que visualizarlos con cautela.. Palabras-claves: adquisición de segundas lenguas; errores gramaticales; feedback correctivo escrito. ABSTRACTSince the early research in Second Language Acquisition (SLA), studies of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) sought to answer several questions about CF and especially WCF: reasons to correct errors, which errors to correct, when to correct, how to correct and by whom. However, initial studies did not focus on the question that is vital in this area today, that is, if CF has the potential to contribute to the development of the target language (BI-TCHENER & FERRIS, 2012). This article reports the results of a pilot study that addresses the effectiveness of WCF. The findings reveal that the experimental groups outperformed the control group in the written posttest; however, due to certain limitations of the pilot study, the results need to be revised with caution.

How do Chilean Pre-Service Teachers Correct Errors in Writing?

“…research on WCF in Spanish has been carried out by contrasting metalinguistic and nonmetalinguistic direct corrective feedback (LAFLEUr; FErrEIrA, 2016), by comparing direct and indirect metalinguistic feedback , and by incorporating response time during error repair following the introduction of a modality of direct and indirect metalinguistic feedback (FErrEIrA;OPOrTUS;FUENTES, 2016). Likewise, studies in English have concentrated on direct and metalinguistic feedback (LILLO, 2014); indirect focused feedback with metalinguistic clues (OrTIz, 2016); indirect WCF with indication and localization; and indirect WCF with indication, localization, and metalinguistic explanation (MUñOz; FErrEIrA, 2017), as well as feedback without metalinguistic information, with metalinguistic explanation and computer-mediated strategies (LILLO;SAéz, 2017). By contrast, very little is known about teachers' feedback use (ArANgUIz; QUINTANILLA, 2016) and pre-service teachers' actual knowledge and practices regarding error correction.…”