Group #7 Motivation and attitudes inSLA

Feedback by Laura Ortega, Laura Churio, Angie Torres, Lina Roncallo

Group # 1: Adriana Orozco, Vanessa Patiño, Andrea Rada, Andrea Siado.

Good contribution.This group sent their clear, concise and supportive answers.They
did a good job as a team. They drafted the text coherently and cohesively. They also
used basic and understandable grammar. We found some writing mistakes of some
words like: aptitude, associate, environment and partners. In spite of those mistakes,
we managed to thoroughly understand what they wanted to convey in the written
text.

Group # 2: Angélica García, Andrés Guerrero, Aida Chacón, Beatriz Ayala.

Very good answers. The examples the group provided were very accurate and
showed both understanding and passion for the topic explained. There was only a
slight mistake in answer number 3, but this did not prevent the answer from being
understood. The group showed a real grasp of the topic and the answers were clear
and precise. Excellent work.

Group # 3: Daniel Escudero, Brianys Padilla, David Morales.

The group answered the questions clearly and concisely, The examples given were
accurate and show an ownership of the topic. It is clear that the group took their time
to answer the questions, as they were answered properly and without hesitation.
Some questions were more developed than others, however all were effectively
answered. Good job.

Group # 4: Eduardo Villarreal, Elvis Vázquez, Giovanni Carballo.

The answers are complete, in general terms they did not deepen their opinions or
criteria.I think they got confused with the instrumental and extrinsic motivation in
question #3 as expressed in the example. We found some grammar errors,
punctuation, capitalization. So, we recommend the group to read and analyze the
answers once again with the corrections made. We suggest avoiding word repetition,
and using strategies such as looking for synonyms, which can help them
complement their ideas.

Group # 5: Wilfrido Padilla, Hellen Torres, Ivan Torregroza, Hansel Barraza

The answers were sent punctually. The group answered all 10 questions in an
understandable way, only with some spelling errors, which did not prevent us from
understanding the idea they wanted to express. They appropriated the subject in the
questions in which their own opinion should be expressed regarding the subject and
the context in which we live. Great job!

Group # 6: Juan Galindo, Janitza Zarate, Jose Pertuz, Laura Bueno.

Very complete answers. Expressed correctly and very close to the subject. Creative
ideas were expressed in a understable way, in relation to the application in a real
situation and an excellent appropriation of the subject.

Group # 8: María Barceló, María Páez, María Palacio, Margarita Neira.

Even though some punctuation mistakes were visible, the message the group
wanted to convey through their ideas was understandable. Creativity was a
protagonist in their answers to the open questions that we suggested.

Group # 9: Michelle Martinez, Naren Osorio, Karen Moreno and Orlando

Bustamante
Some answers felt way too standardized, as if they had been copied and pasted. We
highly suggest finding other ways to answer like paraphrasing or building concepts
through mental linkages and the use of synonyms.

Group # 10: Yulissa Alonso, Valeria, Oscar Navarro Lozano, Ronald Navarro
The answers felt natural, as if the group had taken enough time to reflect on them
and show their understanding of the topic. The activities suggested in their last
answer were different from others we read, and raised our interest in trying them
ourselves.

Group # 11: Yarilin Mejía, Adela Marquez, Natacha Martínez.

The group completed all the questions. Only in question 2, nor integrative motivation
neither instrumental motivation were mentioned. They were clearly expressing and
giving concise ideas about how they would implement tools in their work as teachers
to promote different types of motivation. They did a good job.