Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and compare the effects of group-to-whole student-led oral discussion and small-group collaborative drafting as pre-writing tasks on Iranian intermediate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing performance. Additionally, the difference between the writing components was examined.

To achieve these objectives, a group of 120 intermediate EFL learners participated in a pretest–posttest study in which they were randomly assigned into two experimental groups and one control group. The students in all three groups were tasked with writing a textbook evaluation report for the pretest and posttest. The pre-writing process in the first experimental group consisted of a group-to-whole student-led oral discussion, while the second experimental group engaged in small-group collaborative drafting.

The results indicate that both pre-tasks were effective in improving the participants’ writing skill, while collaborative drafting was even more efficient. Furthermore, it was observed that more writing components improved through collaborative drafting. It is concluded, therefore, that the social atmosphere created through oral discussion and the scaffolding resulting from collaborative drafting can help in writing improvement.

The findings herein can have implications for first language (L1) composition instruction and second language (L2) writing teaching and, thus, underscoring the utility of the social constructivist approach to writing instruction.

As there has been no study conducted to explore the effects of group-to-whole student-led oral discussion on EFL learners’ writing skill and to compare its impacts to those of small-group collaborative drafting, the results of this study fill this gap in the literature.

This study attempts to evaluate the effect of the corpus-based inductive teaching approach with multiple academic corpora (PICA, CAEC and Oxford Corpus of Academic English) and conventional deductive teaching approach (i.e., multiple-choice items, filling the gap, matching and underlining) on learning academic collocations by Iranian advanced EFL learners (students learning English as a foreign language).

This is a quasi-experimental, quantitative and qualitative study.

The result showed the experimental group outperformed significantly compared with the control group. The experimental group also shared their perception of the advantages and disadvantages of the corpus-assisted language teaching approach.

Despite growing progress in language pedagogy, methodologies and language curriculum design, there are still many teachers who experience poor performance in their students' vocabulary, whether in comprehension or production. In Iran, for example, even though mandatory English education begins at the age of 13, which is junior and senior high school, students still have serious problems in language production and comprehension when they reach university levels.

This study was intended to ensure learner-centred pedagogy in an open and distance learning environment by applying scaffolding and positive reinforcement techniques.

This study critically analysed the context and current instructional practice of Bangladesh Open University (BOU) via document analysis and literature review. The conceptual framework of this study was adapted from the ADDIE model, i.e. the analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation model.

The study explored that the instructional practice of BOU was dominated by teacher-centred pedagogy. Hence, to ensure learner-centred pedagogy, the researchers developed three model lesson plans. These lesson plans infused the theoretical directives of scaffolding and positive reinforcement as well as several assessment tasks which can assess the learners’ lower-order and higher-order thinking skills. The researchers also presented possible challenges for the sound implementation of these model lesson plans and suggested pragmatic solutions accordingly.

This study recommended that the combined application of scaffolding and positive reinforcement would effectively ensure learner-centred pedagogy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the teachers implemented innovative feedback approaches in their writing classroom and the extent to which the innovative feedback approaches impacted upon student attitude and performance in writing. In the writing classroom, teacher feedback serves as an assessment as well as a pedagogical tool to enhance the teaching and learning of writing. While there is no shortage of literature on the topic of feedback per se, there is scant research on teachers’ attempts to implement change to conventional feedback practices, as well as the impact of such feedback innovation on student learning. Drawing on data gathered from individual teacher interviews, student questionnaires, student focus group interviews, pre-and post-writing tests and classroom observations, this study seeks to explore two teachers’ change initiative in their writing feedback approaches.

The study used multiple sources of data including individual teacher interviews, student questionnaires and student focus group.

The results suggest that the innovative feedback approaches helped to enhance the motivation and writing performance of the students. The paper concludes with implications and insights to help teachers implement similar feedback innovations in their contexts.

First, the findings suggest that focused written corrective feedback is a viable option for responding to student writing, especially for low proficiency students in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Second, teachers might consider the option of removal or delay in the reporting of scores, where appropriate. Third, more intensive training might be necessary to help students improve their peer evaluation skills and their ability to write more constructive comments for their peers.

The significance of the study lies in the contribution it can make to existing writing feedback research that pays insufficient attention to teacher feedback in real classroom contexts, uncovering the process through which teachers attempt to bring improvement to conventional feedback practices, as well as the impact of feedback innovation on student learning in naturally occurring classroom contexts.

Over the past three decades, there has been considerable change in the education of children with disabilities in Canada. Children with developmental disabilities attend inclusive classrooms and are educated alongside their non-disabled peers, receiving services and supports to optimize their participation (Hutchinson, 2014; Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: The case of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2), 167–177). In Canada, occupational therapists have provided services in schools for over three decades with the aim of supporting participation of children with disabilities (Graham, D. R., Kennedy, D., Phibbs, C., & Stewart, D. (1990). Position paper on occupational therapy in schools. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(4), 1–6; Reid, Chiu, Sinclair, Wehrmann, & Naseerl, 2006). This chapter presents examples from case study research conducted in Ontario, Canada, on the delivery of school-based occupational therapy (SBOT) for two young children (focal participants) with developmental disabilities. Case study research was used to describe the nature of SBOT service delivery from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Data were gathered over the duration of one school year using a combination of observation, document analysis, and interviews involving participants directly involved in the delivery of SBOT with each focal participant. Common characteristics in these two cases enabled cross-case analysis to identify features of collaborative working that facilitated educational programming and outcomes for students with developmental disability.

Consideration can be defined as the process of giving careful thought to something. When an IEP team considers the instructional programming and related goals and objectives for a student identified eligible for special education services, the process gives careful attention to a multitude of factors from different perspectives that result in individualized instruction for that student. Similarly, when assistive technology is considered for students with certain learning characteristics, careful attention must be given to ensure that the recommended assistive technology is required for the student to be successful and reflects an appropriate match between him/her and the tools (Zabala, 1995, 1996). For example, given that prescription eyeglasses can be considered assistive technology, and that a certain degree of visual acuity is generally needed in order for an individual to visually access print, one can see the importance of ensuring that the prescription is indeed required for an individual to perform and is appropriately matched to the visual needs of the individual. If eyeglasses are arbitrarily assigned to an individual, they may serve as an obstacle for the individual to see properly, thus, hampering his/her overall performance.

The purpose of this article is to survey the means through which libraries and writing centers are collaborating to determine best practices and applications.

Examples of collaboration between libraries and writing centers were examined and grouped into similar examples to highlight themes within the literature.

Many librarians are training writing center staff and tutors in library services and information literacy skills. Reference librarians are sharing space or holding joint office hours with writing centers to help create a one‐stop shop for students. Joint classes and workshops are helping to reinforce the connected nature of research and writing. It is important to survey the environment; some types of collaboration work better at some institutions than others.

This is a review of the literature concerning collaboration and cannot contain every example of library and writing center collaboration.

Using this article, librarians can compile a list of possible ways to collaborate with their writing center.

This article is of value to librarians and writing center staff looking for ways to foster collaboration and ways that they can begin to collaborate.

The purpose of this paper is to study the effectiveness of using mind mapping as a methodology to help students to plan effectively for a writing task under an assessment situation.

The methodology included a variety of qualitative data collection techniques such as interviews, mind map analysis, observation checklist and reflective journal.

Evidence and research outcomes suggested that mind mapping did help students to plan and organize their ideas for writing tasks under exam conditions.

A major limitation of the research was that the duration of the research was very short. The turnaround time between the introduction of mind mapping, the implementation of the author's teaching strategies and the final mock examination was just a matter of weeks. The results may be more significant if the same students were retested in six months and again in one year, and this would help the author's research to be more reliable.

This research has shown the effectiveness of using mind mapping as a planning tool and offers practical help for teachers who teach writing skills in upper English as a foreign language classrooms.

To describe how low-stakes writing can assist teachers in eliciting greater student engagement and involvement in their own writing by focusing the stages of the writing process more on student thinking than on the surface structure of their writing.

This chapter examines some of the important research literature addressing process writing in general and low-stakes writing in particular. The authors’ experiences with teaching English in the secondary classroom inform their analysis of implementing low-stakes writing assignments as part of the writing process.

The authors describe how using non-judgmental feedback on low-stakes writing assignments allows the teacher and students to have conversations on paper which are intended to help students explore, expand, and clarify their own thinking about a topic. By establishing a continuing conversation on paper with the students about their writing, the teacher takes on the role of “trusted ally” in the writing process, rather than the more traditional role of an arbiter of writing conventions.

Although the presumptive focus of writing instruction for the last two decades has been on the writing process, the tendency to turn the individual steps of the writing process into discrete writing products in a formulaic manner can cause many important parts of the writing process itself to be either overlooked or given short shrift. This chapter provides useful descriptions of ways in which low-stakes writing assignments can afford teachers the means by which to focus their students’ attention on key portions of the writing process so that their writing products are ultimately improved.

To review and synthesize findings from peer-reviewed research related to students’ sources of ideas for writing, and instructional dimensions that affect students’ development of ideas for composition in grades K-8.

The ideas or content expressed in written composition are considered critical to ratings of writing quality. We utilized a Systematic Mixed Studies Review (SMSR) methodological framework (Heyvaert, Maes, & Onghena, 2011) to explore K-8 students’ ideas and writing from a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives.

Students’ ideas for writing originate from a range of sources, including teachers, peers, literature, content area curriculum, autobiographical/life experiences, popular culture/media, drawing, and play. Intertextuality, copying, social dialogue, and playful peer interactions are productive strategies K-8 writers use to generate ideas for composing, in addition to strategies introduced through planned instruction. Relevant dimensions of instruction include motivation to write, idea planning and organization, as well as specific instructional strategies, techniques, and tools to facilitate idea generation and selection within the composition process.

A permeable curriculum and effective instructional practices are crucial to support students’ access to a full range of ideas and knowledge-based resources, and help them translate these into written composition. Instructional practices for idea development and writing: (a) connect reading and writing for authentic purposes; (b) include explicit modeling of strategies for planning and “online” generation of ideas throughout the writing process across genre; (c) align instructional focus across reading, writing, and other curricular activities; (d) allow for extended time to write; and (e) incorporate varied, flexible participation structures through which students can share ideas and receive teacher/peer feedback on writing.