Feedback interactivo y producción escrita en la enseñanza del español LE/L2

Bibliografía

• Aljaafreh, A. y J. Lantolf. 1994. “Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development”. The Modern Language Journal 78 (4): 465–483. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/328585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, T. y J. Shattuck. 2011. “Design-Based Research”. Educational Researcher 41 (1): 16-25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailini, S. 2020a. “El feedback como herramienta didáctica para el desarrollo de la autonomía en la adquisición de lenguas extranjeras”. Philologia Hispalensis 34 (1): 25-39.
   Google Scholar
• Bailini, S. 2020b. El feedback interactivo y la adquisición del español como lengua extranjera. Milán/Údine: Mimesis.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J. y D. Ferris. 2012. Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J. y N. Storch. 2016. Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Burkert, A. y J. Wally. 2013. “Peer Reviewing in a Collaborative Teaching and Learning Environment”. En Feedback matters. Current Feedback Practices in the EFL Classroom, eds. M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Fauster y R. Vaupetitsch, 69-86. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, A. 2011. “Action Research in the Field of Second Language Teaching and Learning”. En Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, ed. E. Hinkel, 237–253. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, N. y J. Fauster. 2013. “Learner-Centred Feedback on Writing: Feedback as Dialogue”. En Feedback Matters: Current Feedback Practices in the EFL Classroom, eds. M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Fauster y R. Vaupetisch, 55-86. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Depieri, T. 2015. “The Effects of Using Correction Codes and Redrafting on Intermediate Students’ Writing”. Cambridge English Research Notes 61: 15-23.
   Google Scholar
• Dörnyei, Z. y I. Ottó. 1998. “Motivation in Action: A Process Model of L2 Motivation”. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 4: 43-69.
   Google Scholar
• Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duff, P. 2008. Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. Nueva York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Elicker, M. y U. Fürstenberg. 2013. “Feedback in Student Writing: A Closer Look at Code-marking”. En Feedback Matters: Current Feedback Practices in the EFL Classroom, eds. M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Fauster y R. Vaupetisch, 117-140. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. 2009. “A Typology of Written Corrective Feedback Types”. ELT Journal 63 (2): 97–107. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. 2010. “Cognitive, Social and Psychological Dimensions of Corrective Feedback”. En Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning, ed. R. Bartstone, 151-165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, N., K. Hartshorn, R. McCollum y M. Wolfersberger. 2010. “Contextualizing Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Pedagogy”. Language Teaching Research 14 (4): 445-463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernández, S. 2014. “Feedback”. En Fremmedsprog i gymnasiet. Teori, praksis og udsyn, eds. H. Andersen, S. Fernández, D. Fristrup y B. Henriksen, 131-140. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Fernández, S. y H. Kjærgaard. 2019. “Formative Feedback as Grammar Teaching”. En The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner, eds. K. Christensen, H. Jørgensen y J. Wood, 169-184. AU Library Scholarly Publishing Services.
   Google Scholar
• Fries, C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• García Pujals, A. y D. Lasagabaster. 2019. “El efecto de la evaluación y la retroalimentación en la autonomía, la motivación y el aprendizaje del español como L3”. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 32 (2): 455-485.
   Google Scholar
• Golonka, E., A. Bowles, V. Frank, D. Richardson y S. Freynik. 2014. “Technologies for Foreign Language Learning: A Review of Technology Types and their Effectiveness”. Computer Assisted Language Learning 27 (1). 70–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.700315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. y H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback”. Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 2011. “Learning to Write: Issues in Theory, Research, and Pedagogy”. En Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language, ed. R. Manchón, 17-32. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. y F. Hyland. 2006. “Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing”. Language Teaching 39: 77-95.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez Segura, F. 2015. “Uso del feedback como estrategia de evaluación: aportes desde un enfoque socioconstructivista”. Revista Actualidades Investigativas en Educación 15 (1): 1-24. doi:doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v15i1.17633.
   Google Scholar
• Kjærgaard, H. 2018. Technology-Mediated Written Corrective Feedback in the Danish Lower Secondary Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. 1982. [First internet edition 2009] Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. 2000. “Introducing Sociocultural Theory”. En Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, ed. J. Lantolf, 1-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. y A. Pavlenko. 1995. “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 108–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002646.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J., S. Thorne y M. Poehner. 2015. “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development”. En Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction, eds. B. van Patten y J. Williams, 207-226. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lazic, D. 2020. “Using Technology-Assisted Peer Feedback to Improve Academic Writing”. En CALL for Widening Participation: Short Papers from EUROCALL 2020, eds. K. Frederiksen, S. Larsen, L. Bradley y S. Thouësny, 177-182. Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2020.48.1185.
   Google Scholar
• Lundstrom, K. y W. Baker. 2009. “To Give is Better than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer’s Own Writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing 18: 30-43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchón, R., ed. 2012. Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, G. y J. Murphy. 1992. “An L2 Writing Group: Talk and Social Dimension”. Journal of Second Language Writing 1: 171-193.
   Google Scholar
• Reitbauer, M. y R. Vaupetitsch. 2013. “Corrective Feedback in the Constructivist Classroom”. En Feedback Matters: Current Feedback Practices in the EFL Classroom, eds. M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Fauster y R. Vaupetisch, 37-54. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Sato, M. 2017. “Oral Peer Corrective Feedback: Multiple Theoretical Perspectives”. En Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Research, theory, applications, implications, eds. H. Nassaji y E. Kartchava, 19-34. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sheen, Y. 2010. “Differential Effects of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback in the ESL Classroom”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32 (2): 203–234. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stajduhar, I. 2013. “Web-Based Peer Feedback form the Students’ Perspective”. En Feedback Matters: Current Feedback Practices in the EFL Classroom, eds. M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Fauster y R. Vaupetisch, 87-112. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. 2017. “Peer Corrective Feedback in Computer-mediated Collaborative Writing”. En Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Research, Theory, Applications, Implications, eds. H. Nassaji y E. Kartchava, 66-79. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 1993. “The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren't Enough”. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50: 158-164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M. 2006. “Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Proficiency”. En Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, ed. H. Byrnes, 95-108. Londres: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Tigchelaar, M. y C. Polio. 2017. “Language-Focused Peer Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning”. En Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Research, Theory, Applications, Implications, eds. H. Nassaji y E. Kartchava, 97-113. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. 1996. “The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”. Language Learning 46 (2): 327-369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. 2019. “The Effectiveness of Error Correction: Why Do Meta-analytic Reviews Produce Such Different Answers?” En Epoch Making in English Teaching and Learning: A Special Monograph for Celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th anniversary, ed. Y-n Yeung, 129-141. Taipei: Crane.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes, eds. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner y E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, D., J. Bruner y G. Ross. 1976. “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving”. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17 (2): 89–100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar