Efeitos da intervenção do corretor nas produções textuais de um grupo de pré-vestibulandos de Curitiba

• Ano de defesa: 2020
• Autor(a) principal: Oliveira, Glaucia Aline Dissenha de
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná; Curitiba; Brasil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos de Linguagens; UTFPR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Estudantes - Vestibular - Curitiba (PR); Língua portuguesa - Composição e exercícios; Método de estudo; Análise do discurso; Escrita - Conhecimentos e aprendizagem; Metalinguagem; Processamento de textos (Computação); Prática de ensino; Students - Entrance examinations - Curitiba (PR); Portuguese language - Composition and exercises; Study skills; Discourse analysis; Writing - Knowledge and learning; Metalanguage; Text processing (Computer science); Student teaching; CNPQ::LINGUISTICA, LETRAS E ARTES::LINGUISTICA; Letras
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.utfpr.edu.br/jspui/handle/1/5282

The present research aimed to analyze the effects of the proofreader intervention on the text production of pre-admission exam candidates from Curitiba, in order to check how productive the correction is, considering the rewriting that students do from it. According to the theoretical assumptions of this study, the first chapter presents general concepts about evaluation (BOTH, 2017; SANT’ANNA, 2001; PACHECO, 2002; RUIZ, 2010; PERRENOUD, 2007); text and text writing evaluation (KOCH, 2007; ABAURRE; ABAURRE, 2012); didactic sequence (SCHNEUWLY; DOLZ, 2010); as well as the path of the teaching of writing texts in our country (GERALDI, 1984; CORDEIRO; ROJO, 2010). Then, the chapter presents a description of types of text correction, and what the actions of correcting and evaluating mean (RUIZ, 2010), assuming that the correction is a part of the evaluation process and, therefore, it is a mediator of the teaching-learning process (CARVALHO, 2018; GOMES, 1999). Finally, we present the concepts of error and inadequacy (PYM, 1991), which come from translation studiesand were suitable for this research. In the second chapter, we propose the concept of correcting as a metalinguistic process, and consequently, as a technologic process (AUROUX, 1992); hence, it requires a sort of structuring or planning (CUPANI; 2011; PINTO, 2005; BUNGE, 1985). The concept of metalanguage (JAKOBSON, 1980; BENVENISTE, 1989), defended here as a sort of technology, also guided the study on the types of correction in the analysis of the texts on what concerns the reflection about which types could be more sufficiently productive to students, bringing them to the possible development of metalanguage. This leads us to conclude that this is essential for developing the necessary skills for good text production. Chapter two also presents the reasons why we understand text genres as a form of technology (BAZERMAN, 2011; SWALES, 1990). Chapter three describes the methodologic path, besides the corpus, which consists of fourteen texts, divided into two groups: writings and rewritings from the same text. The analyzed texts, from several text genres included in the school universe, belong to Digitus database, and were verified quantitatively and qualitatively. After transcribing the texts from the first and second versions written by the students, we compared what the proofreader corrected in the first version of the texts, what the students corrected or not from the first correction, the type of correction used by the proofreader, in addition to describing if the corrections are in the error or the inadequacy category. The results indicate that the type of corrections does not necessarily affects the learning process, but what the student does after receiving the correction. Sometimes, students did not find sufficiently productive interventions in their text, which made them adopt their autonomy to apply all the necessary changes by their measures. Thus, we conclude that the student does not necessarily internalize rules or improve their writing solely because there is a correction of their rewriting.