Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 24:1 (2001) ► pp.51–60

The parameters of speaking for writing tasks

| Massey University

This paper seeks to identify student, syllabus, and instructional parameters which influence the outcomes of speaking tasks aimed at preparing students for writing. The parameters arise from cognitive, affective and rhetorical concerns. The paper takes the view that some parameters are ‘givens’ while others can be manipulated positively by teachers to increase the productivity or change the outcomes of speaking to writing tasks.

Published online: 1 January 2001
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.24.1.04fra
References
Anderson, J.
(1983) The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R.
(1995) Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York, Freeman.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. and M. Scardamalia
(1982) From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (ed.) Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 21). Hillsdale, N. J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bruffee, K.
(1984) Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English 461: 635–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K.
(1996) Review article: The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning 461:529–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D.
(1995) The elements of language curriculum. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Candlin, M.
(1987) Towards task-based learning. In C. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds) Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Carter, M.
(1990) The idea of expertise: An exploration of the cognitive and social dimensions of writing. College Composition and Communication 411:265–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coirier, P.
(1996) Composing argumentative texts: Cognitive and or textual complexity. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh and M. Couzijn (eds) Theories, models and methodology in writing research. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Doyle, W.
(1983) Academic work. Review of Educational Research 531:159–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986) Content representation in teachers’ definitions of academic work. Journal of Curriculum Studies 181:365–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. and P. Skehan
(1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 161:299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franken, M.
(1997) The effect of talk in argument text construction. Unpublished PhD theses. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.Google Scholar
Gass, S., A. Mackey and T. Pica
(1998) The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. Introduction to the special edition. The Modern Language Journal 821:299–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goh, C. C. M.
(2000) A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System 281:55–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graves, K.
(ed.) (1996) Teachers as course developers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gredler, M. E.
(1997) Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N. J., Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Knudsen, R. E.
(1989) Effects of instructional strategies on children’s informational writing. Journal of Educational Research 831:91–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1989) Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in English as a Second Language 81:1–26.Google Scholar
McCann, T. M.
(1989) Student argumentative writing: Knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English 231:62–76.Google Scholar
Meiran, N.
(1996) Reconfiguring of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 221: 1423–1442.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P.
(1989) Speaking activities: Five features. ELT Journal 431:24–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H.
(1972) Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E.
(1980) Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce and W. Brewer (eds) Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N. J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M. and C. Bereiter
(1987) Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (ed.) Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Reading, and language learning (Vol. 21). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., C. Bereiter and H. Goelman
(1982) The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (ed.) What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (eds) Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, M. A., Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sweller, J.
(1994) Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 41:295–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

[no author supplied]
2008. Zwecke und Konzeptionen der Rechnungslegung. In Rechnungslegung auf informationseffizienten Kapitalmärkten, ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.