Comparison of two components of the strategy-focused instruction for improving writing skills

Our sample comprised 133 Spanish students in 5th and 6th of primary education divided into 6 classes within the same school. Four classes received instruction aimed at developing effective strategies for planning and drafting. In two classes this was taught directly with the aim of giving student direct, declarative strategy knowledge. The other two classes did not receive direct instruction but instead observed the teacher accurately modeling these strategies (a mastery model). The remaining two classes received traditional, product-focused instruction. The study followed a pretest-postest-follow up design. Students wrote using Anoto-based Livescribe pens that provide a digitized, real-time trace of their written production. Writing performance was assessed by holistic and text-analytic measures of product quality (Spencer y Fiztgerald, 1993), by process measures derived from analysis of notes made during planning and from drafting, recording of bursts and executions during the writing process (Olive, 2009), and measures of thinking aloud to analyze the processes carried out by the student during the writing task (Beauvais, Olive, y Passerault, 2011). The analyses are not completed yet, but preliminary results suggest that both interventions were equally effective in developing the quality of students’ texts and both are better than control.

Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J.M. (2011). Why are some texts good and other not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 415-428. doi: 10.1037/a0022545

De la Paz, S. (2007). Managing cognitive demands for writing: comparing the effects of instructional components in strategy instruction. Reading & Writing Quartely, 23, 249-266. doi: 10.1080/10573560701277609

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2014). Evidence-Based Writing Practices: A Meta-Analysis of Existing Meta-Analyses. En R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, y M. Braaksma (Eds.). Design Principles for teaching effective writing. Theoretical and empirical grounded principles. Brill Editions.

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879-896.

Olive, T. (2009). Methods, techniques, and tools for the on-line study of the writing process. En N. L. Mertens, Writing: Processes, tools and techniques (1-18). New York: NOVA.

Presley, M. & Harris, K.R. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom application. En P. A. Alexander y P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2ª ed., pp. 256-286). New York: Jac Millan.

Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., Steendam, E., & Van den Berg, H. (2008). Observation of peers in learning to write. Practice and research. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 53-83.

Adamzik, Kirsten & Roos, Eva (eds.) (2002) Biographie linguistiche – Biographies langagières – Biographias linguisticas – Sprachbiographien (Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 76), Neuchatel. [online]

Available from: https://doc.rero.ch/record/11876/files/bulletin_vals_asla_2002_076.pdf [Accessed: 27th January 2015].

Auer, Peter & Wei, Li (eds.) (2007): Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Baker, Colin (1993) Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Deutschland. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (ed.) (2015) Migrationsbericht 2013. [online]

Available from: http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2013.html?nn=1663558 [Accessed: 27th January 2015]

Cummins, Jim (2000): Language, power and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon England, Buffalo N.Y.: Multilingual Matters.

Erfurt, Jürgen (ed.) (2003): 'Multisprech': Hybridität, Variation, Identität. Duisburg u.a.: Red. OBST.

Esser, Hartmut (2006) Ethnische Ressourcen: Das Beispiel der Bilingualität. Berliner Journal für Soziologie. 4. p.525–543.

Franceschini, Rita & Miecznikowski, Johanna (2004) Wie bin ich zu meinen verschiedenen Sprachen gekommen? In Franceschini, Rita & Miecznikowski, Johanna (eds.) Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Vivre avec plusieurs langues. Sprachbiographien. Biographies langagières. Bern u.a.: Peter Lang. p. VII-XIX.

Fix, Ulla (2010) Sprachbiographien als Zeugnisse von Sprachgebrauch und Sprachgebrauchsgeschichte. Rückblick und Versuch einer Standortbestimmung. In Francescini, Rita & Bethge, Katrin (eds.) Sprache und Biographie. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik. Stuttgart: Metzler. p. 10-28.

García, Ofelia & Bartlett, Lesley & Kleifgen, JoAnne (2007) From Biliteracy to Pluriliteracies. In: Auer, Peter & Wei, Li (eds.) Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. p. 207-228.

Gerrig, Richard & Zimbardo, Philip (2008) Psychologie. 18. Edition.

Gogolin, Ingrid (ed.) (2009) Streitfall Zweisprachigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Günther, Hartmut & Ludwig, Otto (2008) Vorwort. In Günther, Hartmut (ed.) Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung = Writing and its use: an interdisciplinary handbook of international research. 2 volumes. Berlin: De Gruyter Reference Global. p. V-XXXIX.

Jörissen, Benjamin & Zirfas, Jörg (eds.) (2010) Schlüsselwerke der Identitätsforschung. Wiesbaden: VS.

Joseph, John (2010) Identity. In Llamas, Carmen (ed.) Language and Identities. p.9-18.

Kazzazi, Kerstin (2009) Mehrsprachige Biographien – Versuch einer Typologie. In Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke & Nate, Richard (eds.) Europäische Sprachenvielfalt und Globalisierungsprozess. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. p. 77-104.

Krappmann, Lothar (2004) Identität / Identity. In Ammon, Ulrich (ed.) Sociolinguistics. 1. 2. Edition. Berlin: De Gruyter. p. 405–412.

Limbird, C. & Stanat, P. (2006) Sprachförderung bei Schülerinnen und Schülern mit Migrationshintergrund: Ansätze und ihre Wirksamkeit. In Baumert, J. & Stanat, P. & Watermann R. (eds.) Herkunftsbedingte Disparitäten im Bildungswesen: Differenzielle Bildungsprozesse und Probleme der Verteilungsgerechtigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. p. 257‐307.

Oerter, Rolf & Dreher, Eva (2008) Jugendalter. In Oerter, Rolf & Montada, Leo (eds.) Entwicklungspsychologie. Weihnheim: BeltzPVU, p. 271-332.

Portes, Alejandro & Rumbaut, Rubén G. (2001) Legacies. The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, New York: University of California Press.

Reich, Hans H. (2000) Die Gegner des Herkunftssprachen-Unterrichts und ihr Argumente. Deutsch lernen. 25(2). p. 112-126.

Sia, Jennifer & Dewaele, Jean-Marc (2006) Are you bilingual? Birkbeck Studies in Applied Linguistics. 1. [online] p.1-19.

Available from: http://www.bisal.bbk.ac.uk/publications/volume1/pdf/Jenny_Sia_pdf [Accessed: 27th January 2015]

Söhn, Janina (2005) Zweisprachiger Schulunterricht für Migrantenkinder. AKI-Forschungsbilanz. Berlin. [online]

Available from: http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2005/iv05-akibilanz2.pdf

[Accessed: 27th January 2015]
L1 varieties in Flemish secondary education: Teachers’ attitudes toward standard and substandard colloquial Belgian Dutch

Jose Tummers
Abstract: Flemish society exhibits a dynamic sociolinguistic variation between two varieties of colloquial Belgian Dutch: an exogenous formal variety derived from Netherlandic Dutch and an endogenous informal variety resulting from an ongoing (sub)standardization process based on Flemish regiolects and dialects (Geeraerts 2011). There is an ongoing discussion on the societal role of both varieties as well as their respective positions in education (Delarue 2011), given the prominent role of school (staff) in the (socio)linguistic formation of youngsters.

In this contribution, we will analyze the status of both varieties of colloquial Belgian Dutch in Flemish secondary education. The results can support a (more) realistic L1 policy in education which corresponds to teachers’ attitudes.

The following research questions will be addressed:

• Where do teachers situate both language varieties on a stylistic cline (formal/informal)?

• What are teachers’ attitudes toward both language varieties?

• With what (in)formal school contexts do teachers associate both language varieties?

A field experiment was set up (random sample: 42 schools, 322 teachers). Respondents – secondary education language and other teachers – were presented 4 authentic stimuli (Grondelaers et al. 2009), 2 featuring the standard variety and 2 featuring the substandard variety (male speakers, approximately 20 seconds duration). Using the indirect technique of speaker evaluation (Lambert et al. 1960), the respondents were asked to rate the speakers on various socio-psychological scales (prestige/competence, dynamism, social status, personal integrity), their ability to act in (in)formal school situations as well as in very formal situations traditionally reserved to the standard variety.

In an exploratory factor analysis (varimax rotation), a 3 factor solution emerged:

• F1: respondent’s norm sensitivity (0.42 variance explained; EV = 8.32)

• F2: combination of social status and personal integrity (0.18 variance explained; EV = 3.69)

• F3: combination of status/competence and dynamism (0.05 variance explained; EV = 1.27)

Gaussian GLMs revealed that the scores on all factors are conditioned by the teacher’s age and education level. In addition, the F2 scores are constrained by the respondent being a vocational teacher or a L1 Dutch teacher. The teachers’ region as well as the (formality) of the language variety they use in class constrain the F3 scores.

Delarue, S. 2011. Standaardtaal of tussentaal op school? De paradoxale dubbele kloof tussen taalbeleid en taalgebruik. Studies van de Belgisch Kring voor Linguïstiek 6. Url: http://webh01.ua.ac.be/linguist/SBKL/Vol6.htm.

Geeraerts, D. 2011. Colloquial Belgian Dutch. In: D. da Silva, A. S.; Torres, A. & M. Gonçalves (Eds) Pluricentric Languages: Linguistic Variation and Sociocognitive Dimensions, 61-74. Braga: Aletheia,

Grondelaers, S., R. van Hout & M. Steegs. 2009. Evaluating Regional Accent Variation in Standard Dutch. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(1). 101-116.

Lambert, W.E., R. Hodgson, R.C. Gardner & S. Fillenbaum. 1960. Evaluation reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60. 44-51.

Levels of aggregation: Identification of sociolinguistic determinants of written L1 proficiency in higher education

Jose Tummers
Abstract: Key words: native written language proficiency, socio-economic determinants, academic writing
We will investigate sociolinguistic determinants of written L1 proficiency of students in higher education in Flanders. Firstly, higher education institutions set up various support initiatives to improve the academic writing skills of incoming students (Peters & Van Houtven 2010). Secondly, research identified a correlation between first year students’ language proficiency and their study progress (De Wacher et al. 2013).

To support evidence-based language policy, the following research question will be addressed: to what extent is the academic native writing proficiency constrained by sociolinguistic determinants?

At University College Leuven, 348 first year bachelor students wrote an academic argumentative text of 500 words in Dutch (L1) at the end of the first year. The participants were invited to convince government officials of their opinion on social media. They had one hour to complete that task on a computer and were allowed to use all sources deemed useful. The participants were sampled from 13 bachelor programs, ranging from laboratory analysis and business management over nursery to teacher training and social work.

The texts were analytically rated on four symmetrical 4-point scales for language, structure, argumentation and persuasion (Hawkey & Baker 2004). The formal requirements of each scale level were explicitly described (Knoch 2011). An analytical evaluation criterion is considered sufficiently realized, when it corresponds to level B2 of the Common European Framework of Languages, which is generally considered the minimal proficiency level to enter higher education (CNaVT). The impact of the following sociolinguistic variables was tested: the student’s socio-economical profile, his/her study choice in higher education and his/her secondary education history.

First a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (Greenacre 1984) was carried out reducing the four analytical criteria to two latent dimensions identifying a cline from (very) well written to (very) poorly written texts. Next, a hierarchical linear model was fitted (Gelman & Hill 2007), with student properties modeled at level-1 and school/program properties modeled at level-2.

A major impact of the study program emerged, which can largely – but not entirely – be related to the embedment of L1 language modules in the curriculum. Furthermore, secondary education predetermines to a certain extent the level of writing proficiency in higher education.

CNaVT. sd. Profiel Academische Taalvaardigheid – Profiel Taalvaardigheid Hoger Onderwijs. http://www.cnatv.org/main.asp.

De Wachter, L., Heeren, J., Marx, S. & Huyghe, S. 2013. “Taal: noodzakelijke, maar niet enige voorwaarde tot studiesucces. Correlatie tussen resultaten van een taalvaardigheidstoets en slaagcijfers bij eerstejaarsstudenten aan de KU Leuven”. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 13(3), 28-36.

Greenacre, M. 1984. Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. London: Academic Press.

Gelman, A. & Hill, J. 2007. Data Analysis using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: CUP.

Hawkey, R. & Baker, F. 2004. “Developing a common scale for the assessment of writing”. Assessing Writing, 9, 122-159.

Knoch, U. 2011. “Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come from?”. Assessing Writing, 16, 81-96.

Peters, E. & Van Houtven, T. 2010. Taalbeleid in het hoger onderwijs: de hype voorbij? Leuven: Acco.

The European Literacy Policy Network ELINET was initiated to gather and analyze policy information; exchange policy approaches, good practice, and initiatives and raise awareness of the importance of acting now to reduce the number of children, young people and adults with low literacy skills by 2020. ELINET is formed of 79 partner organizations from 28 countries.

All organizations have certain role and tasks within ELINET and all of them belong to some sub-team. Tallinn University is involved in team number two and our task is to describe the situation about literacy development during primary school age in 30 European countries, included Estonia.

At present there are three important sources of information about literacy education policies, literacy curricula and teacher training on the one hand, and reading performance on the other: Eurydice (2011): Teaching Reading in Europe: Contexts, Policies and Practices; PIRLS 2011 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Reading (Volumes 1 and 2); PIRLS 2011, International Results in Reading (Mullis et al. 2011).

The information provided by these publications is the main basis for country reports, what our team is writing.

We will address the various aspects of literacy at primary school age within the three key issues, which the HLG-Report claimed all EU Member States should focus on as they work on their own literacy solutions:

1. Creating a literate environment

2. Improving the quality of teaching

3. Increasing participation, inclusion and equity.

As Estonia did not participate in PIRLS 2011, there is no needed data for above mentioned country report about Estonia. In our poster presentation we will present main aspects or national benchmarks about reading instructions and strategies teachers use, assessment standards and methods etc. in Mother Tongue Curriculum in Estonia and compare the data with other ELINET member countries.

We also introduce ELINET-project in detail and the results of work done so far.
Keywords: literacy, literacy development, literacy education policy, basic reading and writing skills.
References

ELINET project website: http://eli-net.eu/

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2011). Teaching Reading in Europe: Contexts, Policies and Practices. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/130en.pdf

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Minnich, C.A., Drucker, K.T., and Ragan, M.A. (Eds.) (2012), PIRLS 2011 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Reading (Volumes 1 and 2), TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College

http://timssandPIRLS.bc.edu/PIRLS2011/downloads/PIRLS2011_Enc-v1.pdf

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P. and K.T. Ducker. (2011). PIRLS 2011, International Results in Reading. Lunch School of Education, Boston College.

http://timssandPIRLS.bc.edu/PIRLS2011/downloads/P11_IR_FullBook.pdf
Student teachers as researchers: classroom projects and theoretical backgrounds

Pirjo Helena Vaittinen

This material is examined in the theoretical frame of conversation analysis and multimodal interaction analysis. The focus is on the development of the teachership of the student-teachers, emphasizing the portfolio texts, presentations of the projects, and the observational data from multimodal classroom interaction with the pupils.

The research problems were based on the technology used at school, especially iPads. The research questions, however, focused on either discussing a shared theatre performance blogging, writing an analysis of poems, or creative writing using the iPads combining theories of writing and theories of texts with theories of learning. A team of three student-teachers focused on fantasy writing using the theory and model of the collaborative writing method introduced in Subject Didactics; they also reflected the shared experience of working simultaneously in the classroom.
Keywords: teachership, teacher as researcher; dialogical instruction; multimodal interaction, multimodal interaction analysis
References:

Goffman, Erving, Vuorovaikutuksen sosiologia. (Esseys On face work, 1955, The arrangement between the sexes, 1977, Keys and keying, in Frame analysis, 1974, The vulnerabilities of experience, in Frame analysis, 1974, Conclusions, in Frame analysis, 1974, Footing, 1979, The interaction order, 1983.) Translation into Finnish by Kaisa Koskinen. Tampere: Vastapaino 2012.

Kääntä, Leila and Haddington, Pentti, Johdanto multimodaaliseen vuorovaikutukseen. (Introduction into the multimodal interaction. In Haddington, Pentti and Kääntä, Leila (eds.), Kieli, keho ja vuorovaikutus. Multimodaalinen näkökulma sosiaaliseen toimintaan. (Language, Body, and Interaction. Multimodal perspective into social action.) Helsinki: SKS 2011, 11–45.

Tainio, Liisa, Miten tutkia luokkahuoneen vuorovaikutusta keskustelunanalyysin keinoin? (How to do research in the classroom by the means of the conversation analysis?). In Tainio, Liisa (ed.), Vuorovaikutusta luokkahuoneessa: näkökulmana keskustelunanalyysi (Interaction in the classroom: point-of-view in the conversation analysis). Helsinki: Gaudeamus 2007, 15–44.

Vaittinen, Pirjo, Tampereella ilonaiheena integroiva tutkimus (Rejoicing integrative research [in subject teacher studies] in Tampere Research integrating . Virke [The Journal of the Federation of Finnish Mother Tongue Teachers in Finland], 3/2013, 46–47.