2004
Volume 45, Issue 2/3
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs about and skills of students from secondary education concerning writing paragraphs. Students in secondary school have to learn how to write coherent paragraphs because coherence within a text contributes to its comprehensibility. To this end four paragraph toolboxes for two genres (informative e-mails and persuasive texts) were developed, both for year-2 students (aged 13-14) and year-5 students (aged 16-17). The toolboxes are designed on the basis of four principles: pay attention to the norms for writing comprehensible paragraphs, start by presenting the genre-specific writing assignment as a whole task, have pupils complete a self-assessment in order to check the comprehensibility of the paragraphs, and work on part tasks. To explore knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs and skills of students, we conducted a questionnaire among 300 students and analysed more than 2100 of their paragraphs to find out if they comply with the paragraph norms. The research results indicate that there is no significant evidence that there exists a causal relation between the use of the developed paragraph toolboxes in education and the increase of knowledge, skills and self-efficacy beliefs. The paper discusses several possible reasons for his outcome.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.0203.002.WIND
2023-12-15
2024-11-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/45/2/3/TVT2023.0203.002.WIND.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.0203.002.WIND&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Elving, K. & Bergh, H. van den (2015). Gewicht in de schaal; op zoek naar manieren om havisten betere teksten te laten schrijven. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 16(2), 26-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hox, J.J., Moerbeek, M., & Schoot, R. van de (2018). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Janssen, F., Westbroek, H. & Doyle, W. (2015) Practicality studies: how to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 176-186.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Janssen, F., Hulshof, H. & Veen, K. van, (2016). Uitdagend gedifferentieerd vakonderwijs, Praktisch gereedschap om je onderwijsreportoire blijvend uit te breiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Leeuw, B. van der, Meestringa, T., Silfhout, G. van, Smit, J., Hoogeveen, M., Prenger, J., Langberg, M. & Jansma, N. (2017). Nederlands. Vakspecifieke trendanalyse 2017. SLO.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., & Puncochar, J. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Merrill, M. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek (2020). Hoe gaat het met uw (oud-) leerlingen? Rapportage naar aanleiding van het Nationaal Cohortonderzoek Onderwijs. oktober2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. O’Donnell, C. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in k-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33(4), 214–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Pander Maat, H. (2002). Tekstanalyse: Wat teksten tot teksten maakt. Herz. en uitgebr. Versie. Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Pollmann, E., Prenger, J. & Glopper, K. de (2012). Het beoordelen van leerlingteksten met een schaalmodel. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 13(3), 15-24.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M. et al. (2000). A user’s guide to MLwiN. London: Multilevel Models Project Institute of Education, University of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Schoonen, R., Gelderen, A. van, Glopper, K. de et al. (2003). First language and second language writing: the role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning53(1), 165-202.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Schoonen, R. & Glopper, K. de (1992). Toetsing van schrijfvaardigheid: problemen en mogelijkheden. Levende Talen, 470, 187-195.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Stankov, L., & Crawford, J. D. (1997). Self-confidence and performance on tests of cognitive abilities. Intelligence (Norwood), 25(2), 93–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Winden, A. van, (in voorbereiding). Van struikelblok tot bouwsteen, Een vakdidactisch ontwerponderzoek naar het schrijven van begrijpelijke alinea’s in het voortgezet onderwijs.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Winden, A. van, Haaften, T. van, Janssen, F., Stukker, N. & Glopper, K. de (2023). Wat weten leerlingen over alinea’s? Over de kennis van het schrijven van alinea’s en de self-efficacy beliefs van leerlingen in het voortgezet onderwijs. Levende Talen Tijdschrift24(1), 15-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Winden, A. van, Haaften, T. van, & Stukker, N. (2020). Wat typeert een begrijpelijke alinea? Een reconstructie van alineanormen voor het voortgezet onderwijs. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 42(1), 3-30.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Winden, A. van, Stukker, N., Schooten, E. van, Haaften, T. van, Janssen, F. & Glopper, K. de (2021). Hoe zien de alinea’s van onze leerlingen eruit? Over de kenmerken van alinea’s in e-mails en betogende teksten van havoleerlingen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 43(3), 291-321.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.0203.002.WIND
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.0203.002.WIND
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error