Finnish-Russian Bilinguals Acquiring Biliteracy

Bialystok, E.; Luk, G.; Kwan, E. (2005) Bilingualism, Biliteracy, and Learning to Read: Interactions Among Languages and Writing Systems. Scientific Studies of Reading 9(1), 2005. 43–61.

Falk, T.H.; Tam, C.; Schwellnus, H.; Chau, T. (2011) On the development of a computer-based handwriting assessment tool to objectively quantify handwriting proficiency in children. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 104(3), 102 111.

Parke, T.; Drury, R.; Kenner, C.; Helavaara Robertson, L. (2002) Revealing invisible worlds: connecting the mainstream with bilingual children’s home and community learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 2, 195–220.

Schwellnus, H.; Cameron, D.; Carnahan, H. (2012) Which to Choose: Manuscript or Cursive Handwriting? A Review of the Literature. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention 5(3 4), 248 258.

Tucha, O., Mecklinger, L., Walitza, S., & Lange, K.W. (2006). Attention and movement execution during handwriting. Human Movement Science 25, 536–552.

Ainsworth, S. 1999 The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education 33.

Anderson, L. A. & R. Krathwohl (eds.) 2001/2014. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Essex: Pearson.

Ausubel, D. 1963 The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Chi, M. T.H. & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In Margarita Limón & Lucia Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice (pp. 33-27). Springer Netherlands.

Mayer, R. 2002 Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 226–232.

Myhill, D., Jones, S., Lines, H. & Watson, A. 2012. Re-thinking grammar: The impact of embedded grammar teaching on students' writing and students' metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education 27(2), 139–166.

Novak, J. 1998 Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations.

Pintrich, P. 2002. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 219–225.

Posner, George J. , Strike, Kenneth A., Hewson, Peter W. & Gertzog, William A. 1982 Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education 66 (2). 211–227.

BEREITER, C.; SCARDAMALIA, M. (1983). “Does learning to write have to be so difficult?”. FREEDMAN, A.; PRINGLE, I.; YALDEN, J. (eds.). Learning to Write: First Language/ Second Language. Londres: Longman, pag. 20-33.

BRONCKART, J.-P. (1997). Activité langagière, textes et discours, Pour un interactionisme socio-discursif. Lausanne-Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.

CAMPS, A. (1994). L’ensenyament de la composició escrita. Barcelona: Barcanova.

CAMPS, A., RIBAS, T., GUASCH, O., MILIAN, M. (1997), “Dialogue d’élèves et production textuelle. Activité métalinguistique pendant leprocessus de production d’un texte argumentatif”. Recherches, 27: 133-156.

HALLIDAY, M.A.K.; HASAN, Ruqaiya (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group Limited London.

HAYES, J. R.; FLOWER, L. (1980). “Identifying the Organisation of Writing Processes”. GREGG, L. W.; STEINBERG, E. R. (eds.). Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pag. 31-50.

RIBAS, T. & GUASCH, O. (2013). "El diálogo en clase para aprender a escribir y para aprender gramática. Instrumentos para el análisis". Cultura y Educación: Culture and Education, 25:4, 441-452.

SCHNEUWLY, B. (1988). Le langage écrit chez l’enfant. La production des textes informatifs et argumentatifs. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé S.A.
A Study of collaborative learning in a college literature classroom

Celia Reissig-Vasile

Abstract: Research in fields such as literacy acquisition, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, reading theory, literary criticism, and the sociology of classroom interaction has offered new insights into how readers construct meaning with texts and point to the need for change in the patterns of discourse in literature classrooms, based on a different conception of knowledge as continuously regenerated and co-constructed among teachers and learners and their peers (Vacca & Newton, 1995). Researchers who have focused on ways of addressing these challenges have found that small-group discussions of literary texts can be effective vehicles for nurturing these transactional relationships and that they help create richer interpretive communities which elicit deeper analysis and enhance the development of meaning-making processes (Barnes, 1992; Langer, 1993; Petrosky, 1985; Pradl, 1996, Smith, 1988)..

The present study was conducted to contribute to theory building related to the nature of small group discussions of literature and ultimately to increase knowledge in the field of literature instruction as well as to improve the quality of literature instruction. The research project began as a dissertation study and then was further developed as part of a teacher research project for the Mercy College Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning. This study generated important findings regarding the patterns of discourse, which facilitate, impede, or limit meaning making, as well as how task design contributes to these processes,
This research project was a teacher researcher ethnographic study where four of the twelve undergraduate college students in an intact college literature class were audiotaped discussing literary texts in small groups over the course of four months. Their utterances were then coded according to the communicative functions (e.g. competing for a turn, offering assistance, requesting assistance and clarification) and the cognitive functions (e.g. speculating about character motive, assuming character persona, inferring) and it was found that a variety of communicative and cognitive strategies were utilized and that they impacted meaning making processes in important ways. The role of the group tasks designed to elicit and scaffold discussion were also examined in this study. Analyses of the effects of task design identified the types of prompts that are most effective for eliciting discussion aimed at exploration and deepening of meaning.
Keywords: Collaborative Learning; Discourse Analysis; Literature Instruction; Small-group discussions of literature; Patterns of Discourse
References:

Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Langer, J. (1993). Discussion as exploration: Literature and the horizon of possibilities. In G. E. Newell & R. K. Durst (Eds.), Exploring texts: The role of discussion and writing in the teaching and learning of literature (pp. 23-43). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Petrosky, A. R. (1985). Response: A way of knowing. In C. R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 70-83). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Pradl, G. (1996). Literature for democracy: Reading as a social act. Montclair, NJ.: Boynton/Cook.

Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chairperson: Tanja Janssen, T.M.Janssen@uva.nl

Organizer: Saskia Rietdijk, s.rietdijk@uva.nl

Presenters:

Saskia Rietdijk

Daphen van Weijen, D.vanWeijen@uva.nl

Renske Bouwer, I.R.Bouwer@uu.nl

Monica Koster, M.P.Koster@uu.nl

Raquel Fidalgo, rfidr@unileon.es
Many children do not learn to write well despite the fact that educational research has identified effective approaches. Meta-analyses indicate that strategy instruction, in particular, is highly effective.
The aim of this symposium is to discuss research into strategy focused writing programs. Three intervention studies will be discussed, two from the Netherlands and one from Spain, all focused on primary education.

Bouwer, Koster and van den Bergh tested the effectivity of a writing program that combined strategy instruction with goal setting, text structure instruction, peer interaction and feedback in a large-scale intervention study. They found that the quality of students’ writing improved significantly after participation in the program.

Rietdijk, van Weijen, Janssen, Rijlaarsdam and de Jong studied the effects of a strategy focused writing intervention on students’ writing performance, teacher variables and the quality of writing lessons. They distinguished two intervention groups: both groups taught strategy-focused lessons, in one group teachers were also trained. The expectation is that both interventions groups will outperform the control group, and that the training group will outperform the other intervention group.

Why is strategy-focused instruction effective? Fidalgo, Torrance and López-Campelo tried to answer this question. They studied which components of strategy-focused instruction are essential in developing students’ writing skills by comparing two types of strategy-focused conditions, a program that:

1) taught students about what constitutes a good text (declarative knowledge)

2) added strategies of planning and drafting to this (procedural metacognitive knowledge)

• 
  Renske Bouwer & Monica P. Koster
  
• 
  It has been established that, in the Netherlands, a majority of students does not attain the desired level of writing skills at the end of elementary school, and that the way writing is taught must be improved. To identify effective interventions to improve students’ writing performance, we conducted a meta-analysis of 32 (quasi-) experimental writing intervention studies, specifically targeted at students grade 4 to 6. Our analysis identified five instructional practices that significantly improved students’ writing performance: goal setting, strategy instruction, text structure instruction, peer interaction, and feedback. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we developed a program for the teaching of writing in grade 4 to 6, of which we tested the effectivity in a large-scale intervention study, involving 1186 students, using a cross lagged panel design with two conditions. Multilevel analyses revealed that in both conditions the quality of students’ writing improved significantly after the program. Averaged over the two conditions, the writing proficiency of students improved by almost half a grade. Moreover, we found that two months after the intervention, the increased level of students’ writing scores was retained for students in the first condition. These findings indicate that evidence-based practices combined into one program for teaching writing are effective in improving the writing performance of upper elementary students.
  
• 
  Saskia Rietdijk & Daphne van Weijen & Tanja Janssen & Gert Rijlaarsdam
  
• 
  According to the national inspectorate the quality of writing education in Dutch primary schools is poor, and national assessment research indicates students’ writing level is insufficient at the end of primary education. Meta-analyses of educational research have identified effective approaches for writing instruction, however. Strategy instruction, in particular, is highly effective.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Background
  
• 
  The present study is part of ongoing research in primary schools, aimed at the improvement of writing education in grades 4 to 6. The design is experimental, with three conditions: two intervention groups and a control group. In both intervention groups writing is taught through lessons that focus on the acquisition of strategies. In one group teachers are also trained.
  
• 
  We hypothesize that both interventions groups will outperform the control group, and that the training group will outperform the other intervention group.
  
• 
  Data are collected three times a year for two years, regarding teacher variables, the quality of writing lessons and students’ writing performance.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Methodology
  
• 
  In 2013-2014 data were collected from forty-three teachers and their students, using a mixed-methods approach. Teacher variables were measured through a questionnaire and an interview. Information on the quality of writing lessons was obtained from these interviews and lesson observations. Students’ writing was measured in four different genres.
  
• 
  Research questions
  
• 
  In this presentation the effects of the first intervention year are discussed. The following research questions will be answered:
  
• 
  1) Do the teacher variables (cognitions, attitudes, skills) in the intervention groups change more than the teacher variables in the control group?
  
• 
  2) Does the students’ writing performance in the intervention groups improve more than the students’ writing performance in the control group?
  
• 
  3) Is there an additional effect of teacher training?
  
• 
  The pre-test data have been analysed. The remaining data will be analysed before June.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Relevance
  
• 
  This study demonstrates whether a strategy focussed writing intervention is effective in a Dutch context and whether it is wise to add a training component. This is important to know, if one wants to improve writing education.
  
• 
  María Arrimada & Mark Torrance & Raquel Fidalgo
  
• 
  Strategy-focused interventions such as the Self-Regulated Strategy Development program (Harris and Graham, 1996) and the Cognitive Self-Regulation Intervention used in our own research (see a review in Fidalgo & Torrance, 2015) are necessarily multifaceted. Their content aims to promote students' metacognitive knowledge of writing about not only how to plan/revise (procedural knowledge) but also about what to plan/revise (declarative knowledge). Metacognitive knowledge of writing is taught through a combination of several instructional components which typically include: direct teaching of writing strategies supported by the use of mnemonics, modelling of these strategies, and finally, different kind of students’ writing practice supported by different materials and feedbacks that are withdrawn progressively until disappear. So, the global nature of the strategy-focused instruction raises research questions about the reasons for its effectiveness: What contents and/or instructional components of the strategy-focused instruction are most crucial or essential to develop students’ writing skills?