Delectus copyright
Delectus - Scientific Journal, Inicc-Perú - [ISSN: 2663-1148]

URL: https://revista.inicc-peru.edu.pe/index.php/delectus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36996/delectus

Email: publicaciones.iniccperu@gmail.com

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2021): July-December [Edit closure: 01/07/2021]


RECEIVED: 26/05/2021 | ACCEPTED: 23/06/2021 | PUBLISHED: 01/07/2021

Suggested quote (APA, seventh edition)

Villa López, R. M., Dolorier Zapata, R. G., & Vásquez Vilela, R. del P. (2021). Feedback in the production of academic texts by students of the Faculty of Initial at the National University of Education Enrique Guzmán y Valle in Peru. Delectus4(2), 66-72. https://doi.org/10.36996/delectus.v4i2.136


Feedback in the production of academic texts by students of the Faculty of Initial at the National University of Education Enrique Guzmán y Valle in Peru

Roxana Marlene Villa LÓpez

Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University of Education, Perú
roxvilla@outlook.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8797-4753

Rosa Guillermina Dolorier Zapat

Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University of Education, Perú
rdolorierzapata@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3345-0027

Roxana del Pilar Vásquez Vilela

Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University of Education, Perú
vasqueroxana4@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1870-9600

The objective of the study was to determine the influence of the use of feedback in the production of academic texts by students of the III cycle, Faculty of Initial Education, NUE in Peru. It is an applied research with a quasi-experimental design. We worked with a sample of 50 students of Initial Education, belonging to two sections, each with 25 students. The 50 participating students had their ability to produce academic texts measured before and after the application of the use of feedback, applying only to the experimental group the learning session: use of feedback. The instruments were validated by judges' criteria and determined by reliability, and the parametric "T Student" test was used for the analysis, since the data presented normal distribution. It is concluded that the systematic and coherent application of the use of feedback on the production of academic texts of the initial students, is different according to the post-test, therefore, the students of the experimental group obtained better results in their scores in the production of academic texts as an effect of the application of the learning session based on the use of feedback with respect to the students of the control group in which the T Student value = 3.534 with a p< 0.001.

Keywords: feedback; academic text production; superstructure; macrostructure; microstructure.

In the international context, the PISA/2018 report presented by the MINEDU (2019) indicates that the average reading results in Peru is 441 points, which places the nation below the competitive demands in the world (407/408 points), regarding the level of comprehension only 1.5 of 10 students understand at level 4, that is, Peruvians aged 15, close to university entrance, arrive with a serious deficit in skills on textual comprehension, a situation that generates an adverse scenario to produce academic texts.

The comprehension levels required by the various census and sample evaluation instruments in Peru, respond unrestrictedly to the school curriculum, there is a diagnosis on the above, this should be in a worse situation, because the demands are much more complex, students must read sources where the author bases his position, relate them to the quotes that argue and give coherence to the conjecture assumed and that respond to the "educational needs that demand a contextualized teaching-learning process" (Reynosa Navarro, 2016). This "new" way of presenting information makes university students expose themselves to a text with greater rigor for which they need tools for its decoding (Carlino, 2004).

There is a great distance between secondary and university education with respect to academic literacy (reading and writing academic reports), which can be synthesized in the following facts described by Carlino (2004), who compares secondary and higher education; while in the former, students find information by themselves, in the latter, teachers tend to demand only what has been transmitted by them in the classroom. Likewise, while at university they are required to apply and analyze information in secondary school, it is enough to reproduce it, and finally, in higher education the student approaches different perspectives of the same fact or phenomenon, in school the purpose is only to discover whether the information is true or false. Likewise, these conceptions rooted in university culture and regular basic education are shared by higher educational institutions, specifically at the National University of Education Enrique Guzmán y Valle. These conceptions translate into institutional behaviors expressed in anomalous situations that alter university life, mainly to academic literacy, and concretely to the construction of academic texts at a higher level, which translates into four very delimited differences, (Carlino, 2004) these can be summarized in: the scarce consideration of the reader's perspective at the moment of writing, the waste of the epistemic potential of writing, the habit of reviewing information in a linear way and concentrating on irrelevant aspects, and the problem of knowing when to start.

This situation urgently needs to be resolved in 2017 for example, the general coordination of practices in the community, requested all students (1300), at the conclusion of their educational intervention in the community, an essay of the pedagogical knowledge produced with the intention of developing an anthology, for which more than 700 copies were received.But unfortunately, only four passed the minimum requirements and were published (Villa & Salinas, 2017). Of the texts chosen for publication, none were reported from the Faculty of Initial of the NUE. In this sense, it is necessary to validate the use of strategies (such as feedback), which allows creating favorable conditions to improve the production of academic texts in the faculty of Initial and thus achieve the academic profiles required by the university in favor of an optimal performance in their future teaching profession.

The general objective of the study is to determine the influence of the use of feedback in the production of academic texts of students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the NUE. Likewise, the specific objectives are to determine the influence of the use of feedback in the superstructure of the text production of the students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the National University of Education, in order to determine the influence of the use of feedback in the macrostructure of the text production of the students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the NUE, to determine the influence of the use of feedback in the microstructure of the text production of the students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the NUE.

The method employed by the present research is the hypothetical deductive method, in such sense (Hernández & Mendoza, 2018) refers after the application of deductive methods arises the hypothetical deductive method where the hypothesis is formulated, from which then some assumptions and implications will be derived, through whose contrast with reality will focus on verifying the starting hypothesis. Type of research: applied, since in this type of work the cause-effect relationship was sought, where the independent variable is the use of feedback in the production of academic texts by NUE initial education students.

The design is quasi-experimental with pre-test and post-test with intact groups, where the sample subjects were selected intentionally and not randomly. In these cases, it is advisable to resort to quasi-experimental methodology as the only alternative to classical experimentation. This approach makes it possible to solve problems of a practical nature typical of applied fields, such as when the aim is to introduce changes in the educational system of schools. This design includes two groups, one receiving the experimental treatment and the other not (control group). That is, the manipulation of the independent variable reaches only two levels: presence and absence. Subjects are assigned to the groups arbitrarily. After the end of the experimental period, both groups are administered a measurement of the dependent variable under study. The research was carried out in three phases: first, a diagnosis was made to identify the topics to be developed in the educational sessions and the educational contents of the learning sessions based on the use of feedback were developed; second, the educational sessions directed to the students were developed; and third, the evaluation was carried out.

The population is the total of university students enrolled in the period 2020-I of the Faculty of Initial of the UNE, specialties of Early Childhood and Intellectual Disability. The sample was of non-probabilistic type, being part of this research, the 50 university students enrolled in the subject of Children's Literature, VI cycle in the specialties of Early Childhood and Intellectual Disability, Faculty of Education NUE.

Table 1.
The production of academic texts of the students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial Education of the National University of Education
Production of academic texts Control group Grupo experimental
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
f % f % f % f %
Start 11 44,0 12 48,0 14 56,0 00 00
Process 13 52,0 12 48,0 10 40,0 11 44,0
Achievement 1 4,0 1 4,0 1 4,0 14 56,0
Total 25 100,0 25 100,0 25 100,0 25 100,0


Figure 1. The production of academic texts of the students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the National University of Education according to pretest and post test

Table 1 and figure 1 show that in the control group, 44% of the students were at the beginning level in the production of academic texts and 54% in the post-test; 46% were at the in-process level in the pretest and 48% in the post-test; while 4% were at the achievement level. Likewise, in the experimental group, improvements are observed after having applied the use of feedback, where in the pretest it is observed that 56% of the students are in a starting level and then in the posttest 0%; in the level in process 40% is observed in the pretest and then in the posttest 44%; in achievement 4% is observed in the pretest and 56% in the post test, which indicates improvement in the production of academic texts.

Hypothesis testing

General hypothesis

H0: The use of feedback does not positively influence the production of academic texts by students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the NUE.

Hi: The use of feedback positively influences the production of academic texts by students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the UNE.

Table 2.
Comparison t-test in the production of academic texts by students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the National University of Education according to pretest and posttest.
Test t Group gl Sig.
G.C. G.E.
Media Ds Media Ds
Pre-test .891 10.88 2.438 10.80 2.566 48 .378
Post-test 3.534 10.36 1.604 13.12 2.048 48 .001

The production of academic texts by students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the UNE of the control and experimental group present similar initial conditions (T Student= .891and p = .378) in the scores obtained in the pretest. On the other hand, the scores of the production of academic texts of the post-test in the students of the experimental group present significant differences with the scores obtained from the control group (T Student = 3.534 and p = .001), in addition to presenting higher scores obtained.

The implementation of the use of feedback for the improvement of the production of academic texts of the students of initial education of the NUE, allowed improving the superstructure, macrostructure, microstructure in the production of academic texts; this after the use of feedback which caused significant effects in the production of texts of the students of the experimental group in comparison with the students of the control group.

As a general objective, in the control group, 44% of the students were at a beginning level in the production of academic texts and 54% in the post-test; in the in-process level, 46% in the pre-test and 48% in the post-test; while in the achievement level, 4%. Likewise, in the experimental group, improvements are observed after having applied the use of feedback, where in the pretest it is observed that 56% of the students are in a starting level and then in the posttest 0%; in the level in process 40% is observed in the pretest and then in the posttest 44%; in achievement 4% is observed in the pretest and 56% in the post test, which indicates improvement in the production of academic texts.

This result coincides with the research of Colque (2016), who concluded that there is a significant increase (p<0.05) between the application of the program and the production of argumentative texts, using superstructure, macrostructure and microstructure in the texts produced. Additionally, the increase of intertextuality was measured, obtaining also positive values after the intervention of the program. With respect to the general hypothesis, the production of academic texts by students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the NUE of the control and experimental group present similar initial conditions (T Student= .891and p=.378) in the scores obtained in the pretest. On the other hand, the scores of the production of academic texts of the post-test in the students of the experimental group present significant differences with the scores obtained from the control group (T Student = 3.534 and p= .001) in addition to presenting higher scores obtained. In the same way, it was found that the study by Hattie & Yates (2018) found that students in a limited way responded to feedback by making consistent changes, in relation to the feedback received, also showed that the delivery of feedback is not enough to ensure mental processes to achieve deep learning.

In the first dimension, the control group, which is 64% of the students, were at the beginning level in the superstructure of text production and 72% in the post-test; 28% were at the in-process level in the pretest and 28% in the post-test; while 8% were at the achievement level. Also, in the experimental group improvements are observed after having applied the use of feedback, where in the pretest it is observed that 40% of the students are at a beginning level and then in the posttest 0%; in the level in process 60% is observed in the pretest and then in the posttest 44%; in achievement 0% is observed in the pretest and 56% in the posttest which indicates improvement in the superstructure of text production. Sanchez (2015) concludes that, if the methodology to elaborate texts does not take into consideration the implicit cognitive processes, students will face serious difficulties to achieve success in their elaboration. The superstructure of text production students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the NUE of the control and experimental group present similar initial conditions (T Student= .572 and p=.378) in the scores obtained from the pretest. On the other hand, the scores of the text production superstructure of the post-test in the students of the experimental group present significant differences with the scores obtained from the control group (T Student = 3.609 and p= .001), in addition to presenting higher scores obtained. In this regard, Sopina & McNeill (2015) conclude that feedback has a positive impact on the learning of higher-level students, which in order to be more effective must be delivered according to the levels of cognitive demand, and also proved that if the feedback uses some technological means as support, the returns and changes can be given in a more effective way.

In the second dimension, superstructure of text production, the control group, 40% of the students were at the beginning level in the macrostructure of text production and 48% in the post-test; 56% were at the in-process level in the pretest and 44% in the post-test; while 4% were at the achievement level. In addition, in the experimental group, improvements are observed after having applied the use of feedback, where in the pretest it is observed that 56% of the students are at a beginning level and then in the posttest 0%; in the level in process 40% is observed in the pretest and then in the posttest 56%; in the achievement is observed in the pretest 4% and posttest 44% which indicates improvement in the macrostructure of text production, such result is explained in correlation with the conclusions of Ferruci and Pastor (2013), concludes that the procedures that are implicit in academic writing, for this implements the course of language skills as a support of instruction and feedback, generating didactic conditions that allow it to make effective the written production. The sample consisted of 150 students who were taking a level language course for the first time. The macrostructure of the text production of students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initialof the National University of Education of the control and experimental group present similar initial conditions (T Student= .958and p=.343) in the scores obtained in the pretest. On the other hand, the scores of the macrostructure of text production of the post-test in the students of the experimental group present significant differences with the scores obtained from the control group (T Student = 2.801 and p= .008), in addition to presenting higher scores obtained. Likewise, Garello & Rinaudo (2013) stated that feedback allows self-regulation of learning, in addition to allowing university students to acquire knowledge about the notions in the field of didactics, for which they used specific tasks, which were submitted to feedback for the corresponding improvement, achieving significant results.

In the third macrostructure dimension of text production in the control group, 36% of the students were at the beginning level in the microstructure of text production and 28% in the post-test; 40% were at the in-process level in the pretest and 56% in the post-test; while 16% were at the achievement level. Likewise, in the experimental group, improvements are observed after having applied the use of feedback, where in the pretest it is observed that 40% of the students are at a beginning level and then in the posttest 0%; in the level in process 48% is observed in the pretest and then in the posttest 36%; in achievement 12% is observed in the pretest and 64% in the post test which indicates improvement in the microstructure of text production. In that sense Colque (2016) concluded a significant increase of (p<0.05) between the application of the program and the production of argumentative texts, used superstructure, macrostructure and microstructure in the texts produced. Additionally, the increase in intertextuality was also measured, obtaining also positive values after the program intervention. The microstructure of the production of texts produced by students of the III cycle of the Faculty of Initial of the National University of Education of the control and experimental groups presented similar initial conditions (T Student= .860 and p=.395) in the scores obtained in the pretest. On the other hand, the scores of the post-test text production microstructure in the students of the experimental group present significant differences with the scores obtained from the control group (T Student = 4.299 and p= .000), besides presenting higher scores obtained. Similarly, Ferruci & Pastor (2013) conclude that the procedures that are implicit in academic writing generate didactic conditions that allow students to make their written production effective.

Conflict of interest
There has been no conflict of interest.

Carlino,P. (2004). El proceso de escritura académica: Cuatro dificultades de la enseñanza universitaria [The academic writing process: Four difficulties in university teaching]. Educere, 8(26). 321-327.https://bit.ly/2R1BkI8

Colque,E.(2016). Programa“cristalizatus ideas”y su influencia para la producción de textos argumentativos,en los estudiantes del I ciclo de la especialidad profesional de educación de laUniversidad Peruana Unión, 2016 [Program "crystallize your ideas" and its influence for the production of argumentative texts, in students of the I cycle of the professional specialty of education of the Peruvian Union University, 2016]. [Master's thesis, Peruvian Union University]. http://renati.sunedu.gob.pe/handle/sunedu/1994437

Ferruci,G.& Pastor,C. (2013). Desarrollo alcanzado en la redacción académica por los alumnos ingresantes a un curso de habilidades lingüísticas básicas deuna universidad privada de Lima [Development achieved in academic writing by students entering a basic language skills course at a private university in Lima].[Master's thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Perú]. http://tesis.pucp.edu.pe/repositorio/handle/20.500.12404/5030

Garello,M., & Rinaudo,M. (2013). Autorregulación del aprendizaje, feedback y transferencia de conocimiento [Self-regulation of learning, feedback and knowledge transfer].Revista Electrónicade Investigación Educativa [Electronic Journal of Educational Research],15 (2). http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/redie/v15n2/v15n2a9.pdf

Hattie,J., & Yates,G.(2018). Aprendizaje visible y el estudio de sus procesos [Visible learning and the study of its processes](Trad.M. Sánchez).Ediciones Paraninfo.

Hernández,R., & Mendoza,C. (2018). Metodología de la investigación [Research methodology].Las rutas cuantitativa,cualitativa y mixta [Cuantitative, qualitative and mixed routes].Editorial McGraw Hill Education.

Minedu.(2019). Evaluación PISA 2018 [PISA 2018 assessment]. MINEDU.https://bit.ly/39WCBsx

Reynosa Navarro, E. (2016). El libro de texto universitario [The university textbook]. Un enfoque metodológico [A methodological approach]. Revista digital de investigación en docencia universitaria [Digital journal of university teaching research]9(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.19083/ridu.9.415

Sánchez,T. (2015). Procesos cognitivos de planificación y redacción en la producción de textos argumentativos [Cognitive processes of planning and writing in the production of argumentative texts]. [Master's thesis, University of Piura,Perú]. https://pirhua.udep.edu.pe/handle/11042/2272

Sopina,E., & McNeill,R.(2015). Investigating the relationship between quality, formatand delivery offeedback for writte nassignments in higher education. Assessment & Evaluationin Higher Education,40(5) 666–680. https://bit.ly/2Nd3FKl

Villa,R., & Salinas,P.(Coords.)(2017) ¿Es posible aprender en contextos educativos retadores? Experiencias y reflexiones [Is it possible to learn in challenging educational contexts? Experiences and reflections].National University of Education.