Cover not available
Article published In:
Task-Based Language Teaching
Edited by Kris Van den Branden and Machteld Verhelst
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 152] 2006
► pp. 111–126

Motivating Writing Education

| Katholieke Universiteit Leuven & Lessius Hogeschool, on behalf of the Elektra Red-team
Writing can turn into a real passion. However, teaching and learning writing skills is hardly ever the most motivating component of a language curriculum. Writing currricula (i) are often purely skill oriented -at the expense of more cognitive and metacognitive aspects-, (ii) involving oneto- one communication using traditional tools, (iii) lacking clearly differentiated and sequenced goals per "level", (iv) fail to be embedded in a research environment, and (v) are seldom related to an overall view on language acquisition and learning.
Inspired by our view on language learning, called "entorno M@estro" -a learning environment which should be Motivador, Agradablemente Academico - pleasant & academic-, Ecologico (1), Semi-integrado, Traslucido -transparent-, Rutinario and Omnimodo -with multiple means-, the ElektraRed-team combined existing and personal software applications in order to turn the teaching and learning process into a blended learning group travel from the smallest linguistic components (letters & words), over chunks of words, collocations, propositions, paragraphs, to a wide variety of text types, a task-based journey where coaches help learners to discover, train and improve their own strengths and weaknesses in comparison with their colleagues and their own former output. Making use of multimedia enabled us also to compare writing results between various levels and training centres, and to classify writing topics and problems according to training levels. In this article we will present the aims and results of our two-year experiment focussing on innovation in writing education through the use of multimedia. We will show how the results of our experiment allow us now to differentiate, and sequence preferential topics per level. Our ultimate aim with the innovation was to make students write better and ... with passion, as well as make teachers enjoy their jobs even more.
Published online: 1 January 2006
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017865
References (60)
References
http://www.cict.co.uk/software/markin/ (accessed on 9-02-2006)
http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.belelektravoc/engels.htm (accessed on 26-06-2006)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ (accessed on 23-06-2006)
http://unilearning.uow.edu.au/academic/3b.html(accessed on 23-06-2006)
http://www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/Resources/blended.htm (accessed on 23-06-2006)
Benítez Figari, R. (2004). Una propuesta de evaluación para la produccion escrita. RLA: Revista de lingüística teórica yaplicada, 421, 67–92.Google Scholar
Blando Picado, A.I. (2002). EI error en el proceso de aprendizaje. Cuadernos Cervantes, 381, 12–20.Google Scholar
Bordoy, M. (2002). EI Español en el sistema educativo de los Paises Bajos. Cuadernos Cervantes, 421, 25–31.Google Scholar
Bustos Gisbert, J. M. (1999). Análisis de errores: problemas de tipologización. In J. Fernández González et al. (eds.), Lingüística para el siglo XXI. Vol I1 (303–313). Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Butt, J., & Benjamin, C. (1988). A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Buyse, K., & Torts, G. (1999). Magister. EI tutor electrónico de la Handelshogeschool. Un programa de "auto-estudio guiado" en un curso de español interactivo. In T. Jiménez Juliá, M.C. Losada Aldrey & J.F. Marquez Caneda (eds.). Enfoque comunicativo y Gramatica (pp. 923–935). Santiago: Asele & Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
(2000). EvaM@estra, de semi-automatische evaluatie in de M@estromethode. In K. Buyse et al. (eds.). H-ogelijn-Cahier "Begeleide Zelfstudie (pp. 43–60). Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Buyse, K. (2006). Propuesta de una criteriología moderna para materiales y métodos de lengua. In M.I. Pozzo (ed.). Ensenanza de español como lengua extranjera en Argentina. Experiencias y reflexiones (pp. 107–115). Rosario, Argentina: UNR Editora.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.) (2001). Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Cassany, D. (1993). Didáctica de la corrección de 10 escrito. Barcelona: Grao.Google Scholar
(2005). Expresión escrita en L2IELE. Madrid: ArcoLibros.Google Scholar
Cervero, M. J., & Pichardo Castro, F. (2000). Aprender y enseñar vocabulario. Madrid: Edelsa.Google Scholar
Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 161–170.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosincratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 147–160.Google Scholar
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (1993a). Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1993b). Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
De Blaye, D., Efratas, P., & Martínez, E. (2004). La bonne expression en espagnol. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, María J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, Vol. 10/13, 263–295.Google Scholar
Dõrnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 41, 43–69.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1984). Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Fernández González, J. (1995). EI análisis contrastivo: historia y critica. Lynx, Vol. 11, 1–20.Google Scholar
Fernández Montoro, D. (2003). Hacia el desarrollo de la habilidad de la expresión escrita y sus implicaciones didácticas en el proceso de adquisición de ELE. Redele: [URL]
Fernández, S. (1997). Interlengua y análisis de errores en el aprendizaje de español como lengua extranjera. Madrid: Edelsa.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. Tübingen: Pearson.Google Scholar
Jacobs, G. (1998). Cooperative learning or just grouping students: The difference makes a difference. In W. Renandya & G. Jacobs (eds.). Learners and Language Learning (pp. 145–171). Singapore: SEAMEO.Google Scholar
Jain, M.P.(1984). Error Analysis: Source, Cause and Significance. In J.C. Richards (ed.). Error Analysis: Perspectives of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 189–215). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 191, 37–66.Google Scholar
Muñoz Liceras, J.M. (ed.) (1992). La adquisición de lenguas extranjeras: hacia un modelo de análisis de la interlengua. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Pastor Cesteros, S., & Salazar García, V. (eds.) (2001). Tendencias y líneas de investigación en adquisición de segundas lenguas. Estudios de lingüística. Universidad de Alicante. Edición electronica. [URL] (13–05-05).
Penades, I. (2003). Las clasificaciones de errores lingiiisticos en el marco del analisis de errores. Lingilistica en la red. Alcala de Henares: Universidad de Alcala de Henares.Google Scholar
Rescorla, L., & Okuda, S. (1987). Modular patterns in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 81, 281–308.Google Scholar
Romera, Á.-M. (1998). EI error como recurso de didáctica contrastiva (nivel superior). Frecuencia-L, 81, 38–41.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., P. Skehan & M. Swain (eds.). Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 119–34). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Santos Gargallo, I. (1992). La enseñanza de segundas lenguas. Análisis de errores en la expresión escrita de estudiantes de español cuya lengua nativa es el serbo-croata. Tesis doctoral. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
(1993). Análisis contrastivo, análisis de errores e inter/engua en el marco de la Iingüística contrastiva. Madrid: Sintesis.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 111, 129–58.Google Scholar
(1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 111, 11–26.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1969). Language Transfer. General Linguistics, 91, 67–92.Google Scholar
(1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 209–231.Google Scholar
Skær, S. (2004). EI análisis de errores y su impacto en la comunicación en textos escritos por alumnos noruegos en su examen final del bachillerato. Memoria de Máster en Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera. Director: Concepcion Moreno. Madrid: Universidad Antonio de Nebrija.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 171,38–62.Google Scholar
(1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 11, 185–211.Google Scholar
Slager, E. (1990). Valkuilen en valse vrienden. Leidraad voor het vertalen SpaanslNederiands. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Stieger, A. (2004). Estudio de errores que se producen en el aprendizaje del español como lengua extranjera por parte de alum nos cuya lengua materna es el húngaro. Cuadernos Cervantes, 511, 31–37.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 51, 29–53.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–52). Rowley, Massachussets: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Torijano Pérez, J.A. (2004). Errores de aprendizaje, aprendizaje de los errores. Madrid: ArcoLibros.Google Scholar
Vázquez, G. (1991). Análisis de errores yaprendizaje de espaiioillengua extranjera. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vasquez, G. (1999). ¿Errores? ¡Sin falta!. Programa de autoformación y perfeccionamiento del profesorado. Madrid: Edelsa grupo didascalia.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 101, 128–37.Google Scholar
(1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1998). Skills, abilities, and contexts of reality. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 181, 323–33.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

GENÇ ERSOY, Berrin & Derya GÖL DEDE
2022. Developing Writing Skills, Writing Attitudes and Motivation through Educational Games: Action Research. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research 9:3 ► pp. 569 ff. DOI logo
Buyse, Kris, Lydia Fernández Pereda & Katrien Verveckken
2016. The Aprescrilov corpus, or broadening the horizon of Spanish language learning in Flanders. In Spanish Learner Corpus Research [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 78], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Buyse, Kris
2014. Una hoja de ruta para integrar las TIC en el desarrollo de la expresión escrita: recursos y resultados. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 august 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.