1,720,976 research outputs found
Effetti del feedback diretto e indiretto sulla produzione scritta di apprendenti di italiano LS
No full textThe present study compares the effects of written direct and indirect feedback on both uptake and retention. The outcome of the research, that was conducted on six pairs of Italian as a Foreign Language students at different levels of proficiency, shows that indirect feedback is slightly more effective on the immediate uptake, while direct feedback slightly facilitates retention. However, the effectiveness of the correction seems to be affected by the level of personal engagement during feedback processing more than by the type of feedback provided
L’interazione tra pari nell’elaborazione del feedback correttivo
No full textDue to the difficulty of having access to the internal processes that take place in learners’
minds, studies that take into account the feedback processing phase are relatively rare.
However, observing learners’ reactions to feedback, understanding how they use it, or why
they don’t, might be helpful to interpret research results on feedback effectiveness.
In this paper we present the results of a small-scale study on the interactions that took place
among learners of FL Italian while processing direct and indirect feedback on written productions.
The outcomes show that a high level of engagement during feedback processing
may lead to better results in the uptake and retention of the correction, and that there is
not a clear correlation between the type of feedback and the level of engagement. Rather,
the latter seems to be affected by other factors, such as individual variables and patterns of
interaction
Targeted therapies for advanced and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: is there something new?
Full text linkDespite improvements in systemic chemotherapy (CT), the prognosis of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction remains poor. Over the years, new targeting agents have become available and were tested, with or without CT, in first or subsequent lines of therapy. The epidermal growth factor receptor family was targeted with monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) (trastuzumab, cetuximab, panitumumab) and tyrosin kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (lapatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib). Only trastuzumab, in combination with cisplatin and fluoropyrimidines, significantly improved overall survival (OS) in first-line therapy (13.8 vs. 11.1 months). Angiogenesis also was targeted with MoAbs (bevacizumab and ramucirumab); ramucirumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor-receptor 2 antagonist, enhanced OS in two phase III studies in the first (9.6 vs. 7.4 months) and subsequent lines of treatment (5.2 vs. 3.8 months), while the bevacizumab study was negative. TKIs (sunitinib, sorafenib, regorafenib, apatinib) were tested in this setting in phase II studies in the second/third line, only showing modest antitumor activity. The hepatocyte growth factor receptor (MET) was targeted in untreated patients in a phase III trial with MoAb rilotumumab, with or without CT, but the study was stopped because of mortality excess in the rilotumumab arm. Mammalian target of rapamycin (MTOR) pathway inhibition with everolimus was tested in pretreated patients in a placebo-controlled phase III trial who failed to improve OS (5.4 vs. 4.3 months). In conclusion, considering the modest survival gain obtained overall, the high cost of these therapies and the quality of life issue must be primarily considered in treating these patients
Il feedback correttivo scritto : tecniche, elaborazione, acquisizione : Uno studio longitudinale sull’acquisizione dell’italiano come lingua straniera da perte di adolescenti francofoni al liceo
No full textWritten corrective feedback, that is, the intervention of the teacher in response to learners’ errors, is a widely adopted technique in classroom interaction. While researchers working on second language acquisition generally agree that corrective feedback plays a role in the development of learners L2 skills, the identification of the most effective written corrective technique is still a matter of debate (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Among many techniques, direct feedback - i.e. reformulation of the error by the teacher - and indirect feedback - i.e. pointing out the error implicitly, without giving the correction - are the most studied. While feeback effectiveness depends in part on the technique adopted by the teacher, the way students process it and other contextual, individual and linguistic variables might affect its learning potential. Our work aims to compare the effects of the two aforementioned corrective techniques on the L2 acquisition process and, at the same time, to assess the impact of other variables that affect the assimilation of feedback. To this end, we conducted an experimental study on twenty-six French-speaking learners who studied Italian as a third foreign language in high school. They were divided into three groups: one group received direct feedback, one group received indirect feedback, and a control group did not receive feedback. The experimental design consisted in: a pre-test (written and oral production), a treatement phase with written corrective feedback (writing - correction - revision and rewriting), an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test (written and oral production). The results show that the groups that received written feedback obtained better results compared to the control group, both in the rewriting of the text and in the successive written and oral productions. The level of engagement shown by learners while processing the correction affected their results: a higher level of engagement corresponded to better results. As for the comparison between the two corrective techniques, the indirect feedback seemed to be slightly more effective for the rewriting of the text, while direct feedback was more effective in the successive written and oral productions.Le feedback correctif écrit, c’est-à-dire l’intervention de l’enseignant en réponse à l’erreur de l’apprenant, est une technique très utilisée dans l'interaction didactique en classe. Si les chercheurs travaillant sur l’acquisition des langues s’accordent généralement à penser que le feedback correctif joue un rôle dans le développement des compétences de l’apprenant, l’identification de la technique corrective écrite la plus appropriée pour favoriser ce développement fait encore aujourd’hui l’objet de nombreuses controverses (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Parmi la multitude de techniques correctives, le feedback direct – c’est-à-dire la reformulation de la forme erronée par l’enseignant – et le feedback indirect – c’est-à-dire le fait de signaler la forme erronée de manière implicite, sans en donner la correction – sont les plus étudiées dans la littérature francophone, italophone et anglo-saxonne. Si l’efficacité de la correction dépend en partie de la technique adoptée par l’enseignant, la manière dont elle est élaboré par les apprenants ainsi que d’autres variables contextuelles, individuelles et linguistiques peuvent également affecter son potentiel acquisitionnel. Notre travail se propose de comparer les effets des deux techniques correctives susmentionnées dans le processus d’acquisition en L2 et, en même temps, d’évaluer l’impact des autres variables qui affectent l’assimilation du feedback. Pour ce faire, nous avons conduit une étude expérimentale sur vingt-six apprenants francophones qui étudient l’italien comme troisième langue étrangère au lycée. Ils ont été répartis en trois groupes : un groupe a reçu le feedback direct, un groupe a reçu le feedback indirect et un groupe de contrôle n’a pas reçu le feedback. Le protocole d’enquête a prévu : un pré-test (production orale et production écrite), une phase de traitement avec le feedback correctif écrit (écriture – correction – révision et réécriture), un post-test immédiat et un post-test différé (production orale et production écrite). Les résultats obtenus montrent que les groupes qui ont reçu le feedback écrit obtiennent de meilleurs résultats par rapport au groupe de contrôle, tant dans la révision du texte que dans les productions écrites et orales successives. Le niveau d’engagement montré par les apprenants dans l’élaboration de la correction affecte leurs résultats : à un niveau d’engagement plus élevé correspondent de meilleurs résultats. Quant à la comparaison entre les deux techniques correctives, le feedback indirect semble être légèrement plus efficace pour la révision du texte, en revanche le feedback direct s’avère plus efficace dans les productions écrites et orales successives.Il feedback correttivo scritto, ovvero l'intervento dell'insegnante in risposta all'errore dell’apprendente, è una tecnica ampiamente utilizzata nell'interazione didattica in classe. Se generalmente i ricercatori che lavorano sull'acquisizione delle lingue seconde concordano sul fatto che il feedback correttivo gioca un ruolo nello sviluppo delle abilità dello studente in lingua seconda, l'identificazione della tecnica correttiva scritta più adatta a promuovere questo sviluppo è ancora oggi oggetto di controversie (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Tra la moltitudine di tecniche correttive, il feedback diretto - cioè la riformulazione della forma sbagliata da parte dell'insegnante - e il feedback indiretto - cioè l'indicazione implicita della forma sbagliata, senza dare la correzione - sono i più studiati. Inoltre, se l'efficacia della correzione dipende in parte dalla tecnica adottata dall'insegnante, il modo in cui viene elaborata dagli studenti e alcune veriabili contestuali, individuali e linguistiche, influiscono sulla sua efficacia. Il nostro obiettivo è quello di confrontare gli effetti delle due tecniche correttive sopra menzionate nel processo di acquisizione della L2 e, allo stesso tempo, di valutare l'impatto di altre variabili che influenzano l'assimilazione del feedback. A tale scopo, abbiamo condotto uno studio sperimentale su ventisei studenti francofoni che dell'italiano come terza lingua straniera al liceo. Sono stati divisi in tre gruppi: un gruppo ha ricevuto feedback diretto, un gruppo ha ricevuto feedback indiretto e un gruppo di controllo non ha ricevuto feedback. Il protocollo di indagine ha previsto: un pre-test (produzione scritta e orale), una fase di trattamento con il feedback correttivo scritto (scrittura - correzione - revisione e riscrittura), un post-test immediato e un post-test differito (produzione scritta e orale). I risultati dello studio mostrano che i gruppi che hanno ricevuto il feedback scritto hanno ottenuto risultati migliori rispetto al gruppo di controllo, sia nella revisione del testo che nelle successive produzioni scritte e orali. Il livello di coinvolgimento mostrato dagli studenti nello sviluppo della correzione influenza i loro risultati: un livello di coinvolgimento più alto corrisponde a risultati migliori. Per quanto riguarda il confronto tra le due tecniche correttive, il feedback indiretto sembra essere stato leggermente più efficace per la revisione del testo, invece il feedback diretto è stato più efficace nelle successive produzioni scritte e orali
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Il feedback correttivo scritto : tecniche, elaborazione, acquisizione : Uno studio longitudinale sull’acquisizione dell’italiano come lingua straniera da perte di adolescenti francofoni al liceo
No full textWritten corrective feedback, that is, the intervention of the teacher in response to learners’ errors, is a widely adopted technique in classroom interaction. While researchers working on second language acquisition generally agree that corrective feedback plays a role in the development of learners L2 skills, the identification of the most effective written corrective technique is still a matter of debate (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Among many techniques, direct feedback - i.e. reformulation of the error by the teacher - and indirect feedback - i.e. pointing out the error implicitly, without giving the correction - are the most studied. While feeback effectiveness depends in part on the technique adopted by the teacher, the way students process it and other contextual, individual and linguistic variables might affect its learning potential. Our work aims to compare the effects of the two aforementioned corrective techniques on the L2 acquisition process and, at the same time, to assess the impact of other variables that affect the assimilation of feedback. To this end, we conducted an experimental study on twenty-six French-speaking learners who studied Italian as a third foreign language in high school. They were divided into three groups: one group received direct feedback, one group received indirect feedback, and a control group did not receive feedback. The experimental design consisted in: a pre-test (written and oral production), a treatement phase with written corrective feedback (writing - correction - revision and rewriting), an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test (written and oral production). The results show that the groups that received written feedback obtained better results compared to the control group, both in the rewriting of the text and in the successive written and oral productions. The level of engagement shown by learners while processing the correction affected their results: a higher level of engagement corresponded to better results. As for the comparison between the two corrective techniques, the indirect feedback seemed to be slightly more effective for the rewriting of the text, while direct feedback was more effective in the successive written and oral productions.Le feedback correctif écrit, c’est-à-dire l’intervention de l’enseignant en réponse à l’erreur de l’apprenant, est une technique très utilisée dans l'interaction didactique en classe. Si les chercheurs travaillant sur l’acquisition des langues s’accordent généralement à penser que le feedback correctif joue un rôle dans le développement des compétences de l’apprenant, l’identification de la technique corrective écrite la plus appropriée pour favoriser ce développement fait encore aujourd’hui l’objet de nombreuses controverses (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Parmi la multitude de techniques correctives, le feedback direct – c’est-à-dire la reformulation de la forme erronée par l’enseignant – et le feedback indirect – c’est-à-dire le fait de signaler la forme erronée de manière implicite, sans en donner la correction – sont les plus étudiées dans la littérature francophone, italophone et anglo-saxonne. Si l’efficacité de la correction dépend en partie de la technique adoptée par l’enseignant, la manière dont elle est élaboré par les apprenants ainsi que d’autres variables contextuelles, individuelles et linguistiques peuvent également affecter son potentiel acquisitionnel. Notre travail se propose de comparer les effets des deux techniques correctives susmentionnées dans le processus d’acquisition en L2 et, en même temps, d’évaluer l’impact des autres variables qui affectent l’assimilation du feedback. Pour ce faire, nous avons conduit une étude expérimentale sur vingt-six apprenants francophones qui étudient l’italien comme troisième langue étrangère au lycée. Ils ont été répartis en trois groupes : un groupe a reçu le feedback direct, un groupe a reçu le feedback indirect et un groupe de contrôle n’a pas reçu le feedback. Le protocole d’enquête a prévu : un pré-test (production orale et production écrite), une phase de traitement avec le feedback correctif écrit (écriture – correction – révision et réécriture), un post-test immédiat et un post-test différé (production orale et production écrite). Les résultats obtenus montrent que les groupes qui ont reçu le feedback écrit obtiennent de meilleurs résultats par rapport au groupe de contrôle, tant dans la révision du texte que dans les productions écrites et orales successives. Le niveau d’engagement montré par les apprenants dans l’élaboration de la correction affecte leurs résultats : à un niveau d’engagement plus élevé correspondent de meilleurs résultats. Quant à la comparaison entre les deux techniques correctives, le feedback indirect semble être légèrement plus efficace pour la révision du texte, en revanche le feedback direct s’avère plus efficace dans les productions écrites et orales successives.Il feedback correttivo scritto, ovvero l'intervento dell'insegnante in risposta all'errore dell’apprendente, è una tecnica ampiamente utilizzata nell'interazione didattica in classe. Se generalmente i ricercatori che lavorano sull'acquisizione delle lingue seconde concordano sul fatto che il feedback correttivo gioca un ruolo nello sviluppo delle abilità dello studente in lingua seconda, l'identificazione della tecnica correttiva scritta più adatta a promuovere questo sviluppo è ancora oggi oggetto di controversie (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Tra la moltitudine di tecniche correttive, il feedback diretto - cioè la riformulazione della forma sbagliata da parte dell'insegnante - e il feedback indiretto - cioè l'indicazione implicita della forma sbagliata, senza dare la correzione - sono i più studiati. Inoltre, se l'efficacia della correzione dipende in parte dalla tecnica adottata dall'insegnante, il modo in cui viene elaborata dagli studenti e alcune veriabili contestuali, individuali e linguistiche, influiscono sulla sua efficacia. Il nostro obiettivo è quello di confrontare gli effetti delle due tecniche correttive sopra menzionate nel processo di acquisizione della L2 e, allo stesso tempo, di valutare l'impatto di altre variabili che influenzano l'assimilazione del feedback. A tale scopo, abbiamo condotto uno studio sperimentale su ventisei studenti francofoni che dell'italiano come terza lingua straniera al liceo. Sono stati divisi in tre gruppi: un gruppo ha ricevuto feedback diretto, un gruppo ha ricevuto feedback indiretto e un gruppo di controllo non ha ricevuto feedback. Il protocollo di indagine ha previsto: un pre-test (produzione scritta e orale), una fase di trattamento con il feedback correttivo scritto (scrittura - correzione - revisione e riscrittura), un post-test immediato e un post-test differito (produzione scritta e orale). I risultati dello studio mostrano che i gruppi che hanno ricevuto il feedback scritto hanno ottenuto risultati migliori rispetto al gruppo di controllo, sia nella revisione del testo che nelle successive produzioni scritte e orali. Il livello di coinvolgimento mostrato dagli studenti nello sviluppo della correzione influenza i loro risultati: un livello di coinvolgimento più alto corrisponde a risultati migliori. Per quanto riguarda il confronto tra le due tecniche correttive, il feedback indiretto sembra essere stato leggermente più efficace per la revisione del testo, invece il feedback diretto è stato più efficace nelle successive produzioni scritte e orali
Corrective feedback : techniques, processing, acquisition : A longitudinal study on the acquisition of Italian as a foreign language by French-speaking adolescents in high school
No full textLe feedback correctif écrit, c’est-à-dire l’intervention de l’enseignant en réponse à l’erreur de l’apprenant, est une technique très utilisée dans l'interaction didactique en classe. Si les chercheurs travaillant sur l’acquisition des langues s’accordent généralement à penser que le feedback correctif joue un rôle dans le développement des compétences de l’apprenant, l’identification de la technique corrective écrite la plus appropriée pour favoriser ce développement fait encore aujourd’hui l’objet de nombreuses controverses (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Parmi la multitude de techniques correctives, le feedback direct – c’est-à-dire la reformulation de la forme erronée par l’enseignant – et le feedback indirect – c’est-à-dire le fait de signaler la forme erronée de manière implicite, sans en donner la correction – sont les plus étudiées dans la littérature francophone, italophone et anglo-saxonne. Si l’efficacité de la correction dépend en partie de la technique adoptée par l’enseignant, la manière dont elle est élaboré par les apprenants ainsi que d’autres variables contextuelles, individuelles et linguistiques peuvent également affecter son potentiel acquisitionnel. Notre travail se propose de comparer les effets des deux techniques correctives susmentionnées dans le processus d’acquisition en L2 et, en même temps, d’évaluer l’impact des autres variables qui affectent l’assimilation du feedback. Pour ce faire, nous avons conduit une étude expérimentale sur vingt-six apprenants francophones qui étudient l’italien comme troisième langue étrangère au lycée. Ils ont été répartis en trois groupes : un groupe a reçu le feedback direct, un groupe a reçu le feedback indirect et un groupe de contrôle n’a pas reçu le feedback. Le protocole d’enquête a prévu : un pré-test (production orale et production écrite), une phase de traitement avec le feedback correctif écrit (écriture – correction – révision et réécriture), un post-test immédiat et un post-test différé (production orale et production écrite). Les résultats obtenus montrent que les groupes qui ont reçu le feedback écrit obtiennent de meilleurs résultats par rapport au groupe de contrôle, tant dans la révision du texte que dans les productions écrites et orales successives. Le niveau d’engagement montré par les apprenants dans l’élaboration de la correction affecte leurs résultats : à un niveau d’engagement plus élevé correspondent de meilleurs résultats. Quant à la comparaison entre les deux techniques correctives, le feedback indirect semble être légèrement plus efficace pour la révision du texte, en revanche le feedback direct s’avère plus efficace dans les productions écrites et orales successives.Written corrective feedback, that is, the intervention of the teacher in response to learners’ errors, is a widely adopted technique in classroom interaction. While researchers working on second language acquisition generally agree that corrective feedback plays a role in the development of learners L2 skills, the identification of the most effective written corrective technique is still a matter of debate (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Among many techniques, direct feedback - i.e. reformulation of the error by the teacher - and indirect feedback - i.e. pointing out the error implicitly, without giving the correction - are the most studied. While feeback effectiveness depends in part on the technique adopted by the teacher, the way students process it and other contextual, individual and linguistic variables might affect its learning potential. Our work aims to compare the effects of the two aforementioned corrective techniques on the L2 acquisition process and, at the same time, to assess the impact of other variables that affect the assimilation of feedback. To this end, we conducted an experimental study on twenty-six French-speaking learners who studied Italian as a third foreign language in high school. They were divided into three groups: one group received direct feedback, one group received indirect feedback, and a control group did not receive feedback. The experimental design consisted in: a pre-test (written and oral production), a treatement phase with written corrective feedback (writing - correction - revision and rewriting), an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test (written and oral production). The results show that the groups that received written feedback obtained better results compared to the control group, both in the rewriting of the text and in the successive written and oral productions. The level of engagement shown by learners while processing the correction affected their results: a higher level of engagement corresponded to better results. As for the comparison between the two corrective techniques, the indirect feedback seemed to be slightly more effective for the rewriting of the text, while direct feedback was more effective in the successive written and oral productions
Il feedback correttivo scritto : tecniche, elaborazione, acquisizione : Uno studio longitudinale sull’acquisizione dell’italiano come lingua straniera da perte di adolescenti francofoni al liceo
No full textWritten corrective feedback, that is, the intervention of the teacher in response to learners’ errors, is a widely adopted technique in classroom interaction. While researchers working on second language acquisition generally agree that corrective feedback plays a role in the development of learners L2 skills, the identification of the most effective written corrective technique is still a matter of debate (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Among many techniques, direct feedback - i.e. reformulation of the error by the teacher - and indirect feedback - i.e. pointing out the error implicitly, without giving the correction - are the most studied. While feeback effectiveness depends in part on the technique adopted by the teacher, the way students process it and other contextual, individual and linguistic variables might affect its learning potential. Our work aims to compare the effects of the two aforementioned corrective techniques on the L2 acquisition process and, at the same time, to assess the impact of other variables that affect the assimilation of feedback. To this end, we conducted an experimental study on twenty-six French-speaking learners who studied Italian as a third foreign language in high school. They were divided into three groups: one group received direct feedback, one group received indirect feedback, and a control group did not receive feedback. The experimental design consisted in: a pre-test (written and oral production), a treatement phase with written corrective feedback (writing - correction - revision and rewriting), an immediate post-test and a delayed post-test (written and oral production). The results show that the groups that received written feedback obtained better results compared to the control group, both in the rewriting of the text and in the successive written and oral productions. The level of engagement shown by learners while processing the correction affected their results: a higher level of engagement corresponded to better results. As for the comparison between the two corrective techniques, the indirect feedback seemed to be slightly more effective for the rewriting of the text, while direct feedback was more effective in the successive written and oral productions.Le feedback correctif écrit, c’est-à-dire l’intervention de l’enseignant en réponse à l’erreur de l’apprenant, est une technique très utilisée dans l'interaction didactique en classe. Si les chercheurs travaillant sur l’acquisition des langues s’accordent généralement à penser que le feedback correctif joue un rôle dans le développement des compétences de l’apprenant, l’identification de la technique corrective écrite la plus appropriée pour favoriser ce développement fait encore aujourd’hui l’objet de nombreuses controverses (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Parmi la multitude de techniques correctives, le feedback direct – c’est-à-dire la reformulation de la forme erronée par l’enseignant – et le feedback indirect – c’est-à-dire le fait de signaler la forme erronée de manière implicite, sans en donner la correction – sont les plus étudiées dans la littérature francophone, italophone et anglo-saxonne. Si l’efficacité de la correction dépend en partie de la technique adoptée par l’enseignant, la manière dont elle est élaboré par les apprenants ainsi que d’autres variables contextuelles, individuelles et linguistiques peuvent également affecter son potentiel acquisitionnel. Notre travail se propose de comparer les effets des deux techniques correctives susmentionnées dans le processus d’acquisition en L2 et, en même temps, d’évaluer l’impact des autres variables qui affectent l’assimilation du feedback. Pour ce faire, nous avons conduit une étude expérimentale sur vingt-six apprenants francophones qui étudient l’italien comme troisième langue étrangère au lycée. Ils ont été répartis en trois groupes : un groupe a reçu le feedback direct, un groupe a reçu le feedback indirect et un groupe de contrôle n’a pas reçu le feedback. Le protocole d’enquête a prévu : un pré-test (production orale et production écrite), une phase de traitement avec le feedback correctif écrit (écriture – correction – révision et réécriture), un post-test immédiat et un post-test différé (production orale et production écrite). Les résultats obtenus montrent que les groupes qui ont reçu le feedback écrit obtiennent de meilleurs résultats par rapport au groupe de contrôle, tant dans la révision du texte que dans les productions écrites et orales successives. Le niveau d’engagement montré par les apprenants dans l’élaboration de la correction affecte leurs résultats : à un niveau d’engagement plus élevé correspondent de meilleurs résultats. Quant à la comparaison entre les deux techniques correctives, le feedback indirect semble être légèrement plus efficace pour la révision du texte, en revanche le feedback direct s’avère plus efficace dans les productions écrites et orales successives.Il feedback correttivo scritto, ovvero l'intervento dell'insegnante in risposta all'errore dell’apprendente, è una tecnica ampiamente utilizzata nell'interazione didattica in classe. Se generalmente i ricercatori che lavorano sull'acquisizione delle lingue seconde concordano sul fatto che il feedback correttivo gioca un ruolo nello sviluppo delle abilità dello studente in lingua seconda, l'identificazione della tecnica correttiva scritta più adatta a promuovere questo sviluppo è ancora oggi oggetto di controversie (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). Tra la moltitudine di tecniche correttive, il feedback diretto - cioè la riformulazione della forma sbagliata da parte dell'insegnante - e il feedback indiretto - cioè l'indicazione implicita della forma sbagliata, senza dare la correzione - sono i più studiati. Inoltre, se l'efficacia della correzione dipende in parte dalla tecnica adottata dall'insegnante, il modo in cui viene elaborata dagli studenti e alcune veriabili contestuali, individuali e linguistiche, influiscono sulla sua efficacia. Il nostro obiettivo è quello di confrontare gli effetti delle due tecniche correttive sopra menzionate nel processo di acquisizione della L2 e, allo stesso tempo, di valutare l'impatto di altre variabili che influenzano l'assimilazione del feedback. A tale scopo, abbiamo condotto uno studio sperimentale su ventisei studenti francofoni che dell'italiano come terza lingua straniera al liceo. Sono stati divisi in tre gruppi: un gruppo ha ricevuto feedback diretto, un gruppo ha ricevuto feedback indiretto e un gruppo di controllo non ha ricevuto feedback. Il protocollo di indagine ha previsto: un pre-test (produzione scritta e orale), una fase di trattamento con il feedback correttivo scritto (scrittura - correzione - revisione e riscrittura), un post-test immediato e un post-test differito (produzione scritta e orale). I risultati dello studio mostrano che i gruppi che hanno ricevuto il feedback scritto hanno ottenuto risultati migliori rispetto al gruppo di controllo, sia nella revisione del testo che nelle successive produzioni scritte e orali. Il livello di coinvolgimento mostrato dagli studenti nello sviluppo della correzione influenza i loro risultati: un livello di coinvolgimento più alto corrisponde a risultati migliori. Per quanto riguarda il confronto tra le due tecniche correttive, il feedback indiretto sembra essere stato leggermente più efficace per la revisione del testo, invece il feedback diretto è stato più efficace nelle successive produzioni scritte e orali
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
