Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Argumentative writing and oral proficiencies are two skills many students around the world are required to develop in their learning of the English language. However, these are two areas where not all students excel in. This chapter reports two studies that examined the effect of using blended learning approaches to improve students’ argumentative writing and oral proficiencies. The two studies relied on objective measurements of students’ performance outcomes such as their argumentative essay test scores, and oral proficiency scores determined by the Analytic Oral Proficiency Assessment Rubric, instead of students’ self-report data of their perceived writing or oral proficiencies. The first study employed a one-group pre- and post-test research design to examine the impact of a blended learning approach on grade 9 students’ ability to make claims, challenge them, and back them up by producing valid reasons. The results from a Wilcoxon Matched-Rank test showed a significant improvement of the students’ performance in their overall score in the post-test essays. The second study utilized a pre-test and post-test quasi-experimental design to investigate the use of a blended learning approach utilizing a Voice-Over-Instant-Messaging tool (Skype) on freshman’s English oral proficiency. The results from an ANCOVA test suggested that students in structured online discussions with the facilitation of English teaching assistants (ETAs) scored significantly higher in their oral proficiency tests compared to their counterparts in unstructured online discussions or structured online discussions without the facilitation of ETAs.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell.
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., & Mullis, J. V. N. (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Bergdahl, D. (1999). Scoring guides in the process-oriented composition class: Having students write their own scoring guides. Exercise Exchange, 45, 21–24.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Volume 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cho, K-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.
Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1996). Holistic critical thinking scoring rubric. Retrieved June 15, 2003, from http://www.calpress.com/rubric.html.
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 67–86.
Greenlaw, S. A., & DeLoach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic discussion. The Journal of Economic Education, 34(1), 36–52.
Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York: Springer. CrossRef
Knudson, R. E. (1988). Effects of instructional strategies on student writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
Knudson, R. E. (1989). Effects of four instructional strategies on students’ informational writing. Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 91–96.
Knudson, R. E. (1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade, and sex on students’ persuasive writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 59(2), 141–152. CrossRef
Koh, Y. C. (2004). The impact of scaffolding via online asynchronous discussions on students’ thinking skills in writing argumentative essays. Unpublished master thesis. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Kost, C. R. (2004). An investigation of the effects of synchronous computermediated communication (CMC) on interlanguage development in beginning learners of German: accuracy, proficiency, and communication strategies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 4, 1346. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3131612).
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. (1988). Genres, semantics, and classroom education. Linguistics and Education, 1(1), 81–99. CrossRef
MacElvee, C. R. (2002). The relationship between the application of scoring rubrics and writing performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
Morgan, W., & Beaumont, G. (2003). A dialogic approach to argumentation: Using a chat room to develop early adolescent students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(2), 146–157.
Newman, D. R., Johnson, C., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1997). Evaluating the quality of learning in computer supported cooperative learning. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 48, 484–495. CrossRef
Ng, C. S. L., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Solving ill-structured problems in asynchronous online discussions: Built-in scaffolds vs. no scaffolds. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 115–134. CrossRef
Pittenger, K. K. S., Miller, M. C., & Allison, J. (2006). Can we succeed in teaching business students to write effectively? Business Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 257–263. CrossRef
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1990). An introduction to reasoning. (2nd ed.). Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Unrau, N. (1989). The TASK of reading and writing: A study of the effects of a procedural facilitator on the construction of arguments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
Unrau, N. (1992). The TASK of reading (and writing) arguments: A guide to building critical literacy. Journal of Reading, 35(6), 436–442.
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90. CrossRef
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. CrossRef
Wyngaard, S., & Gehrlce, R. (1996). Responding to audience: Using rubrics to teach and assess writing. English Journal, 85, 67–70. CrossRef
Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers and Education, 52(4), 820–833. CrossRef
Yang, Y.-T. C., Gamble, J., & Tang, S.-Y. S. (2012). Voice over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 448–464. CrossRef
- Improving Students’ Argumentative Writing and Oral Proficiencies
Khe Foon Hew
Wing Sum Cheung
- Springer Singapore
- Chapter 5
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com