Scaffolding argumentative essay writing via reader-response approach: a case study
Tóm tắt
The variety of activities and techniques suggested for improving the writing skill shows that EFL/ESL learners need scaffolding to gain mastery over it. The present study employed the reader-response approach to provide the assistance EFL learners require for writing argumentative essays. Five upper-intermediate EFL learners in a private class participated in the qualitative case study. The participants were not selected from the fields related to the English language and did not have any previous instruction on literary texts. During the treatment that took 20 sessions, each session 2 h, the participants read five short stories. Different classroom activities were used as sources of information, which helped the researcher to collect the required data. The classroom activities consisted of group discussions, writing tasks, and responses to the short stories that helped the learners to reflect on the short stories. Think-aloud protocols helped the researcher to learn about the participants’ mental processes during writing. The semi-structured interviews provided the researcher with the information necessary for a deeper understanding of the efficacy of the classroom procedure. As the results of the study showed, successful writing requires manipulation of meta-cognitive strategies and thought-provoking activities. Although the findings of the study cannot be generalized, they can inspire EFL/ESL teachers and material developers to seek a variety of procedures in their approaches to teaching writing.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ahmad Khan Beigi, S., & Ahmadi, H. (2011). Rhetorical patterns of structural and rhetorical patterns of Persian and English argumentative essays. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7(1), 167–178.
Allen, M. (2009). Developing and using rubrics for assessing, grading, improving student writing. [Adapted from Barbara Walvoord, Winthrop University, University of Washington]. www2.humboldt.edu/.../Complete%20Writing%20Rubric%20Packet%20by%20Mary...Mary Allen. Accessed 12 June 2016.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2000). Literature and L2 composition: Revisiting the debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(1), 21–39.
Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge.
Carlisle, A. (2000). Reading logs: An application for reader-response theory in ELT. ELT Journal, 54(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.1.12.
Chi, F. M. (1999). Reading as a transaction in EFL: A thematic analysis. National Chung Cheng University https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED437855.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2018.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dhanapal, S. (2010). Stylistics and reader response: An integrated approach to the teaching of literary texts. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 1(4), 233–239.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gajdusek, L. (1988). Toward wider use of literature in ESL: Why and how. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 227–257. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586935.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Gonzalez, I., & Courtland, M. C. (2009). Reader response as a focal practice in modern language acquisition. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 7(2), 110–138.
Grossman, P. L. (2001). Research on the teaching of literature: Finding a place. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 416–432). Washington, D.C: American Educational Research Association.
O. Henry. (1907). The last leaf. http://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/the-last-leaf.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2018.
Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson.
Iskhak, I. (2015). The application of reader-response theory in enhancing student teachers’ affective and linguistic growth: A classroom action research in EFL teacher education in Indonesia. The English Teacher, XLIV(2), 43–55.
Jackson, S. (1948). The lottery. https://sites.middlebury.edu/individualandthesociety/files/2010/09/jackson_lottery.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2018.
Joyce, J. (1914). Clay. http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/clay.html. Accessed 25 May 2018.
Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Khatib, S. (2011). Applying the reader-response approach in teaching English short stories to EFL students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 151–159.
Lawrence, D. H. (1926). The rocking horse winner. http://blogs.bu.edu/cflamm/files/2012/10/The-Rocking-Horse-Winner.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2018.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Malmar, M.K. (1944). The storm. https://www.scasd.org/cms/lib/PA01000006/Centricity/Domain/1487/McKNIGHT%20MALMAR%20Storm.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2018.
Moradian, M. R., Adel, S. M., & Tamri, M. S. (2014). An intercultural rhetoric investigation of the discourse topic in the English and Persian editorials. Switzerland Research Park Journal, 103(1), 62–72.
Oster, J. (1989). Seeing with different eyes: Another view of literature in the ESL class. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 85–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587509.
Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking. San Francisco: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Rashtchi, M. (2007). A pathway toward critical thinking through cooperative writing in an English college course in Iran. The Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education, 2(1), 1–11.
Rashtchi, M., & Mohammadi, M. A. (2017). Teaching lexical bundles to improve academic writing via tasks: Does the type of input matter? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14(2), 201–219.
Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: D. Appleton-Century.
Rosenblatt, L. (1976). Literature as exploration. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
Rosenblatt, L. (1985). The transactional theory of the literary work: Implications for research. In C. R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 33–53). Norwood: Ablex.
Shafer, G. (2013). The problem of literature in composition classes. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 28(2), 34–40.
Sherman, K. (2013). How social media changes our thinking and learning. The Language Teacher Online. https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/37.4tlt_plenary3.pdfJALT Accessed 12 Dec 2018.
Smagorinsky, P. (2002). Teaching English through principled practice. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Spack, R. (1985). Literature, reading, writing, and ESL: Bridging the gap. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 703–725.
Sumara, D. J. (1995). Response to reading as a focal practice. English Quarterly, 28(1), 18–26.
TOEFL Test Preparation Kit. (1995). Princeton. NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Topping, K. (2001). Thinking reading writing. London: Continuum.
Wegerif, R. (2006). Literature review in thinking skills, technology and learning. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/1838/futl75.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2017.