Uso de estrategias de producción de textos en inglés en estudiantes de segundo grado de secundaria en instituciones educativas públicas y privadas del distrito de Iquitos 2022

Descripción del Articulo

The study conducted in 2022 analyzed the use of strategies for English text production among second-year high school students from public and private institutions in Iquitos. Of a comparative type and field design, contemporary cross sectional and univariate, it included a sample of 330 students and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor: Paima Lopez, Marco Antonio
Formato: tesis de grado
Fecha de Publicación:2025
Institución:Universidad Nacional De La Amazonía Peruana
Repositorio:UNAPIquitos-Institucional
Lenguaje:español
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.unapiquitos.edu.pe:20.500.12737/12057
Enlace del recurso:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12737/12057
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:Método de aprendizaje
Creación literaria
Inglés
Estudiante de secundaria
https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.03.01
Descripción
Sumario:The study conducted in 2022 analyzed the use of strategies for English text production among second-year high school students from public and private institutions in Iquitos. Of a comparative type and field design, contemporary cross sectional and univariate, it included a sample of 330 students and 62 English teachers. The results revealed differences in the perceptions of both groups. The students did not identify significant differences in planning (p = 0.311), feedback (p = 0.073), and publication (p = 0.348), while the teachers did perceive significant variations (p < 0.05). Regarding the use of strategies, students consider that in public institutions they are not regular (X̅ = 58.869) and in private ones they are not adequate (X̅ = 53.683), while teachers rate them as regular in public institutions (X̅ = 65.07) and adequate in private ones (X̅ = 86.95). In editing strategies, both groups agree that there are significant differences in their application (p < 0.05). Finally, the null hypothesis was accepted for students (p = 0.060 > 0.05), indicating that there are no differences in their use, while for teachers the alternative hypothesis was accepted (p = 0.001 < 0.05), showing significant differences in their application.
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).