The textual revision module from the “AutorIA” software
teachers’ appreciations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14393/DLv19a2025-43Keywords:
Academic text, Textual review, Educational software, Usability, Teachers’ appreciationsAbstract
This work aims to investigate the appreciations made in 2023 by teachers from two public undergraduate teacher education courses in Language and Literature (English and Portuguese) about the usability of the software “Name”, focusing on the performance of the textual revision module included in the teacher’s version. This tool, besides collaborating in the text revisions, provides support to undergraduates for reading and writing academic genres, with an initial focus on summaries and reviews. For the creation of the revision module, understood from a dialogical perspective (Gasparotto; Menegassi, 2019), we constructed a hybrid theoretical perspective, supported mainly by the Sociodiscursive Interactionism (ISD) and by the Academic Literacies. From the first theory, we used the concepts of summary and review (Machado; Lousada; Abreu-Tardelli, 2004a; 2004b) and Bronckart's text analysis model (1999), with priority given to action, linguistic and linguistic-discursive capacities (Dolz; Pasquier; Bronckart, 2017 [1993]), which constitute the teachable dimensions of genres. From the Academic Literacies approach, we apprehended the vision of reading, writing and revision as social practices and the need to systematize the teaching of genres considering the variations that they may contain according to environments and groups (Street, 1984; Lea; Street, 1998; Lillis; Scott, 2007). When it comes to usability analysis, understood as the result of the interaction between people and systems, we based ourselves on Nielsen (1994; 2012) and Levi and Conrad (2002). As a technical reference, we used NBR 9241-11 (ABNT, 2021). Regarding the methods, we carried out an applied, qualitative research, with an exploratory objective (Paiva, 2019), in which an online form was used as an instrument for data generation. This form was based on the System Usability Scale Model, proposed by Brooke (1996), which allows a more comprehensive view of users' subjective evaluations. Data analysis was developed through Content Analysis (Bauer, 2015). In general, the teachers evaluated the software positively, perceiving it as a resource that facilitates the work, given the simplicity, practicality and objectivity of the tool.
Downloads
References
ANTUNES, I. Aula de Português: encontro & interação. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2003.
ASSIS, J. A. “Eu sei mas não consigo colocar no papel aquilo que eu sei”: representações sobre os textos acadêmico-científicos. In: RINCK, F.; BOCH, F.; ASSIS, J. A. (org.). Letramento e formação universitária: formar para a escrita e pela escrita. Campinas: Mercado de Letras, 2015. p. 423-454.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR ISO 9241-11. Ergonomia da interação humano-sistema. Parte 11: Usabilidade: Definições e Conceitos. Rio de Janeiro, 2021.
BAUER, M. W. Análise de conteúdo clássica: uma revisão. In: BAUER, M. W; GASKELL, G. (org.). Pesquisa qualitativa com texto, imagem e som: um manual prático. Tradução de Pedrinho Guareschi. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2015.
BRONCKART, J. P. Atividade de linguagem, textos e discursos: por um Interacionismo Sociodiscursivo. Tradução de Eulália Vera Lúcia Fraga Leurquin e Fábio Delano Vidal Carneiro. 2. ed. Fortaleza: Parole et vie, 2023.
BRONCKART, J. P. Atividade de linguagem, textos e discursos: por um Interacionismo Sociodiscursivo. Tradução de Anna Rachel Machado e Péricles Cunha. São Paulo: Educ, 1999.
BROOKE, J. SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale, 1996. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228593520_SUS_A_quick_and_dirty_usability_scale.
CAETANO OLIVEIRA, M. de C.; TEIXEIRA, F. A. O software “AutorIA”: análise da usabilidade por estudantes de um curso de Geografia. Texto Livre, Belo Horizonte-MG, v. 18, p. e55336, 2025. DOI https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-3652.2025.55336
CAETANO OLIVIERA, M. de C; GOMES, M. L. M. A revisão e a reescrita de resumos e resenhas na área de Letras: análise de perspectivas. In: BOTELHO, L.; VIANINI, C. (org.) Letramentos e ensino: reflexões a partir da linguística aplicada. Campinas: Mercado de Letras, 2024.
DOLZ, J.; PASQUIER, A.; BRONCKART, J.P. A aquisição do discurso: emergência de uma competência ou aprendizagem de diferentes capacidades de linguagem? Nonada: Letras em Revista, n. 28, v. 1, maio de 2017.
FIAD, R. S. Reescrita, dialogismo e etnografia. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, Tubarão, SC, v. 13, n. 3, p. 459-462, set./dez. 2013. DOI https://doi.org/10.1590/S1518-76322013000300002
GASPAROTTO, D. M.; MENEGASSI, R. J. Revisão dialógica: princípios teórico-metodológicos. Linguagem em (Dis)curso – LemD, Tubarão, SC, v. 19, n. 1, p. 107-124, jan./abr. 2019. DOI https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-190107-4518
HYLAND, K. Disciplinary discourse: social interactions in academic writing. Singapura: Pearson Education Limited, 2000.
LEA, M. R.; STREET, B. Student writing in Higher Education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, v. 23, n. 2, jun., p. 157-172, 1998. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364
LEITE, E. G. A produção de textos em sala de aula: da correção do professor à reescrita do aluno. In: PEREIRA, R. C. M. Nas trilhas do ISD: práticas de ensino-aprendizagem da escrita. Campinas: Pontes, 2012. p. 141-177.
LEVI, F. G; CONRAD, M. D. Usability Testing of World Wide Web Sites. 2002. Disponível em: http://stats.bls.gov/ore/htm_papers/st960150.htm.
LIKERT, R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Nova York: Archives of Psychology, 1932.
LILLIS, T.; SCOTT, M. Defining academic literacies research: issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, v. 4, p. 5-32, jan. 2007. DOI https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i1.5
MACHADO, A. R. (coord.); LOUSADA, E.; ABREU-TARDELLI, L. S. Resumo. São Paulo: Parábola, 2004a.
MACHADO, A. R. (coord.); LOUSADA, E.; ABREU-TARDELLI, L. S. Resenha. São Paulo: Parábola, 2004b.
NIELSEN, J. Introduction to Usability, 2012. Disponível em: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/.
NIELSEN, J. Usability inspection methods. 1994. Disponível em: http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/lecturenotes/0h420/nielsen[1994].pdf.
NIELSEN, J; MOLICH, R. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Disponível em: file:///C:/Users/maril/Downloads/Texto%20Nielsen.pdf.
PAIVA, V. L. M. de O. Manual de pesquisa em estudos linguísticos. São Paulo: Parábola, 2019.
RUIZ, E. D. Como corrigir redações na escola. São Paulo: Contexto, 2010.
SERAFINI, M. T. Como escrever textos. São Paulo: Globo, 1989.
STREET, B. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Marilia de Carvalho Caetano Oliveira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain the copyright and waiver the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), allowing the sharing of work with authorship recognition and preventing its commercial use.
Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
How to Cite
