|
Dòng
|
Nội dung
|
|
1
|
‘It’s insanely useful!’ Students use of instructional concepts in group work and individual writing / Kari Anne Rodnes
// Language and education 2012, Vol26, N.5 2012p. 183-199 This study investigates students’ work on analyzing a literary text, a cartoon strip, with focus on their use of instructional, analytical concepts. Excerpts from a group conversation and from individually written texts are analyzed from a sociocultural, dialogical perspective. The analysis of the conversation shows how such concepts help the students to study the text more closely and maintain an analytical focus. The use of concepts thus helps the students understand the text and what text analysis is about. The students’ written texts show that they build on the understanding developed in the group discussion. The analytical focus in the discussion helps them maintain the understanding developed in group when they write individually. Thus, the use of analytical concepts contributes to mediating between group reasoning and individual writing
|
|
2
|
‘Nothing too major’ : how poor revision of writing may be an adaptive response to school tasks / Lucy Oliver
// Language and education Vol. 33-No 4/2019 2019p. 363-378 This multicase study explores students’ understandings about revision in the light of successive findings that they typically revise their texts little and at superficial levels. Students’ limited revising has been variously explained, both in terms of cognitive-metacognitive factors and restrictive school models. Few studies, however, have examined students’ thinking about revision. This investigation considers the impact students’ concepts of purpose have on their revising and the extent to which perceived expectations and school routines inform the scope of their achievement. One-to-one observations of writing, post hoc interviews and analyses of students’ texts were repeated over the course of an extended classroom writing task. Findings suggest that whilst students’ definitions of revision were narrow and their text changes primarily superficial, they did not necessarily lack the understanding or skill to revise more effectively. Able writers explicitly chose an instrumental approach, attributing limited revision to tightly-prescribed and time-controlled tasks. They perceived a dichotomy between school purposes and more authentic possibilities. The study highlights the contextualised nature of students’ decision-making and argues that poor revision may be an adaptive response to school requirements rather than an innate limitation.
|
|
3
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|