Una revisión sistemática de intervenciones en línea sobre escritura

  1. Judit García-Martín 1
  2. Carmen Álvarez-Álvarez 2
  3. Sheila García-Martín 3
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca, España.
  2. 2 Universidad de Cantabria, España.
  3. 3 Universidad de León, España.
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
Campus Virtuales

ISSN: 2255-1514

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 11

Número: 1

Páginas: 9-20

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.54988/CV.2022.1.811 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Campus Virtuales

Resumen

Las investigaciones en escritura han girado en torno a dos modalidades instruccionales: el producto y el proceso. En los últimos años, se hace plausible la necesidad de considerar, estas en un entorno web y añadir la modalidad mixta (combinación de los dos anteriores) y la ecológica, complementaria de la procesual, pero prestando atención al contexto educativo. Se presenta una revisión de treinta estudios empíricos de intervenciones en línea sobre escritura, publicados en el último lustro en revistas de impacto con el objetivo de ofrecer una visión panorámica del tema. Los resultados demuestran que la mayoría de las intervenciones cumplen parcialmente las directrices acordadas en la reunión científica de la European Research Network Learning to Write Effectively. Muchos de los estudios no evidencian la existencia de un periodo de formación del profesorado participante, de un grupo de control, de una medida específica de fidelidad del tratamiento, de durabilidad y de generalización.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aghajani, M.; Adloo, M. (2018). The effect of online cooperative learning on students’ writing skills and attitudes through telegram application. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 433-448. doi:10.12973/iji.2018.11330a.
  • Alamargot, D. (2008). The European Research Network on Learning to Write Effectively (ERN-LWE). IS0703 Project. (http://www.cost-lwe.eu/COST_IS0703_Project.pdf).
  • Álvarez, M. L.; García, J. N.; García-Martín, J.; Díez, H. (2012). Contraste de dos modalidades instruccionales en competencia comunicativa escrita: producto y proceso. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 4(1), 261-266.
  • Bayley, D.; Judd, C. (2018). The Effects of Online Collaborative Writing and TOEIC Writing Test- Preparation on L2 Writing Performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 383-397. doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.8.383.
  • Beauvais, C.; Olive, T.; Passerault, J. M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and online management of the writing processes. Journal of Eof Educational Psychology, 103, 415-428. doi:10.1037/a0022545.
  • Brunfaut, T.; Harding, L.; Batty, A. O. (2018). Going online: The effect of mode of delivery on performances and perceptions on an-English L2 writing test suite. Assessing Writing, 36, 3-18. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.003.
  • Chew, C. S.; Wu, W. C. V.; Idris, N.; Loh, E. F.; Chua, Y. P. (2020). Enhancing Summary Writing of ESL Learners via a Theory-Based Online Tool: System Development and Evaluation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(2), 398-432. doi:10.1177/0735633119837765.
  • Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Ebadi, S.; Rahimi, M. (2017) Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787-815. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056.
  • Frydrychova, B. (2014). Approaches to the teaching of writing skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 147-151. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1149.
  • Gallego, J. L.; García, A.; Rodríguez, A. (2014). Percepciones de estudiantes universitarios sobre la planificación de la escritura. European Scientific Journal, 10(1), 26-44.
  • García-Martín, J.; García, J. N. (2015). Efectos positivos del uso de blogs y wikis en variables psicoeducativas: revisión de estudios internacionales (2010-2013). ESE. Estudios sobre Educación, 29, 103-122. doi:10.15581/004.29.103-122.
  • García-Martín, J.; García-Sánchez, J. N. (2018). The instructional effectiveness of two virtual approaches: processes and product. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 23(2), 117-127. doi:10.1016/j.psicod.2018.02.002.
  • García-Martín, J.; García-Sánchez, J. N. (2020). The effectiveness of four instructional approaches used in a MOOC promoting personal skills for success in life. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 25(1), 36-44. doi:10.1016/j.psicoe.2019.08.001.
  • García-Martín, J.; García, J. N.; Pacheco, D. I. (2011). Antecedentes empíricos y planificación de estudios a través de herramientas 2.0. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 3(1), 191-199.
  • Graham, S.; Harris, K. (2014). Conducting high quality writing intervention research: Twelve recommendations. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2), 89-123
  • Graham, S.; Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A metaanalysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407. doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.488703.
  • Grami, G. M. A.; Alkazemi, B. Y. (2016). Improving ESL writing using an online formulaic sequence word-combination checker. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 95-104. doi:10.1111/jcal.12115.
  • Hsieh, Y. (2019). Learner interactions in face-to-face collaborative writing with the support of online resources. ReCALL, 32(1), 85-105. doi:10.1017/S0958344019000120.
  • Hsu, W.-C.; Liu, G.-Z. (2019). Genre-based writing instruction blended with an online writing tutorial system for the development of academic writing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(1), 100-123. doi:10.1093/llc/fqy021.
  • Krishnan, J.; Cusimano, A.; Wang, D.; Yim, S. (2018). Writing Together: Online Synchronous Collaboration in Middle School. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(2), 1-11. doi:10.1002/jaal.871.
  • Latifi, S.; Noroozi, O.; Hatami, J.; Biemans, H. J. A. (2019). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning?. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1-12. doi:10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005.
  • Liang C.; Chang C.-C.; Shu K.-M.; Tseng J.-S.; Lin C.-Y. (2016). Online reflective writing mechanisms and its effects on self-regulated learning: a case of web-based portfolio assessment system. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1647-1664. doi:10.1080/104 94820.2015.1041403.
  • Liao, J. (2018). The impact of face-to-face oral discussion and online text-chat on L2 Chinese writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 27-40. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.06.005.
  • Liu, M.; Liu, L.; Liu, L. (2018). Group awareness increases student engagement in online collaborative writing. The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.001.
  • López, P.; Torrance, M.; Fidalgo, R. (2019). The online management of writing processes and their contribution to text quality in upper-primary students. Psicothema, 31(3), 311-318. (https://10.7334/psicothema2018.326).
  • Miller, L. C.; Russell, C. L.; Cheng, A. L.; Zembles, S. (2018). Testing the efficacy of a scaffolded writing intervention with online degree-completion nursing students: A quasi-experimental design. Nurse Education in Practice, 32, 115-121. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2018.06.011.
  • Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29-40. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.02.003.
  • Moore, J.; Jones, K. (2015). The Journalism Writing Course: Evaluation of Hybrid versus Online Grammar Instruction. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 70(1), 6-25. doi:10.1177/1077695814551831.
  • Mori, Y.; Omori, M.; Sato, K. (2016). The Impact of Flipped Online Kanji Instruction on Written Vocabulary Learning for Introductory and Intermediate Japanese Language Students. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), 729-749. doi:10.1111/flan.12222.
  • Navarro, F.; Ávila, N.; Cárdenas, M. (2020). Lectura y escritura epistémicas: movilizando aprendizajes disciplinares en textos escolares. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 22(15), 1-13. doi:10.24320/redie.2020.22.e15.2493.
  • Noroozi, O.; Biemans, H. J. A.; Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 20-31. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002.
  • Pértega, S.; Pita, S. (2005). Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Cad Atención Primaria, 12(2), 109-112. (https://bit.ly/2XtKArG).
  • Reyes-Angona, S.; Fernández-Cárdenas, J. M. (2015). La escritura académica en la formación en línea de docentes de escuelas públicas mexicanas. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 17(2), 1-15. (https://redie.uabc.mx/redie/ article/view/412/1219).
  • Riley, E. (2019). Exploring Strategies to Enhance Scholarly Writing for RN-BSN Students Using an Online Tutorial. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 14(2), 128-134. doi:10.1016/j.teln.2018.12.011.
  • Sánchez-Meca, J. (2010). Cómo realizar una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis. Aula Abierta, 38(2), 53-64.
  • Sarica, H. C.; Usluel, Y. K. (2016). The effect of digital storytelling on visual memory and writing skills. Computers & Education, 94, 298-309. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.016.
  • Saiful; Wihastyanang, W. D.; Sulistyo, G. H.; Mukminatien, N. (2019). Confronting effect of online teacher and peer feedback on the students’ writing performance. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 77(5), 650-666. doi:10.33225/pec/19.77.650.
  • Sayer, N. A.; Noorbaloochi S.; Frazier P. A. (2015). Randomized Controlled Trial of Online Expressive Writing to Address Readjustment Difficulties Among U.S. Afghanistan and Iraq War Veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28(5), 381‐390. doi:10.1002/jts.22047.
  • Shahrokhi, H. (2017). The impact of product and process approach on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability and their attitudes toward writing skill. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(2), 158-166. doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n2p158.
  • Strobl, C. (2015). Attitudes towards online feedback on writing: Why students mistrust the learning potential of models. ReCALL, 27(3), 340-357. doi:10.1017/S095834401 5000099.
  • Sung, Y.-T.; Liao, C.-N.; Chang, T.-H.; Chen, C.-L.; Chang, K.-E. (2016). The effect of online summary assessment and feedback system on the summary writing on 6th graders: The LSA-based technique. Computers & Education, 95, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.003.
  • Thulasi A/P, S.; Bin, A. R.; Bte, F. (2014). Comparative analysis of process versus product approach ofteaching writing in Malaysian schools: Review of literature. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 22(6), 789-795. doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.22.06.21943.
  • Tsai, M.-C., Chen, S.-C., Kuo, Y.-Y., & Hsieh, W.-Y. (2015). Online journal writing and corrective feedback on tertiary level EFL college students’ attitudes and writing. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 440-446.
  • Ubilla, L.; Gómez, L.; Sáez, K. (2017). Escritura colaborativa de textos argumentativos en inglés usando Google Drive. Estudios pedagógicos, 43(1), 331-348. doi:10.4067/S0718-07052017000100019.
  • Valero, A.; Noroozi, O.; Biemans, H. J. A.; Mulder, M. (2019). The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 390-398. doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1472132.
  • Xu, C. (2018). Understanding online revisions in L2 writing: A computer keystroke-log perspective. System, 78, 104-114. doi:10.1016/j.system.2018.08.007.
  • Yang, Y. (2016) Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 683-702.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet