ReadingWritingReading. An Intervention Study at Lower...

ReadingWritingReading. An Intervention Study at Lower Secondary Level to

Enhance Literacy Skills

Elfriede Witschel / Gerda WobikUniversity College of Teacher Education Carinthia

Viktor Frankl HochschuleAustria

[email protected]@ph-kaernten.ac.at

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Contents

1. The Study – theoretical view (Elfriede Witschel)

1.1 Context of the study

1.2 Conceptual framework: design principles and research questions

1.3 Research design and methodology

2. The Study – empirical view (Gerda Wobik)

2.1 Sample

2.2 First selected results

3. Conclusion and Discussion

CPH 2019 / Elfriede Witschel / Gerda Wobik / University College of Teacher Education Carinthia, Austria 2

2. The Study – Theoretical View

1.1 Context of the Study

1.1 Context of the study

• International studies: PISA 2000, 2009, 2018

• National Study in the wake of PISA 2009 (Saxalber, Witschel & Edtstadler, 2012)

• National Studies: 2016 (Breit, Bruneforth & Schreiner, 2017)

• Questionnaire: 2037 students (upper secondary level) and 100 teachers (Saxalber & Witschel, 2013)

• Study on Reading and Writing at upper secondary level(Witschel, 2017)


1.2 Conceptual Framework: Four Design Principles

1.2 Conceptual Framework: Four Design Principles

1. Learning Environment (Witschel, 2017)

2. Interrelation between Reading and Writing – Reading and Writing Strategies (Harris and Graham, 2009; Struger, 2013; Feilke, 2017 Wengelin & Arfé, 2018,)

3. Literary Learning (Spinner, 2006)

4. Self-Regulated Learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman, Bonner & Kovach 1996)


learners resources: tasks

teacherscontents

Text

Expertise

Competence in ApplyingMethods

SocialCompetence

Meta-cognitive

Competence


1.2 Conceptual Framework: Four Design Principles:1. Learning Environment

One‘sown Text

Fig. 1: Learning Environment (Witschel, 2017)


- Word

and sentence

identification

- Local coherence

***

- Global coherence

-Recognizing superstructures

-Identifying representational strategies

Knowledge - Involvement - Motivation -Reflexion

Self-Concept as (Non)Reader

Family - School - Peers - Cultural Life

Follow-up Communication

1.2 Conceptual Framework: Four Design Principles2. ReadingWritingReading

Process Level

Fig. 2: The multi-level model of reading by Rosebrock/Nix, 2017, p. 15, translation by EW

Subject Level

SocialLevel


• Process-orientation (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hayes, 1996; Bräuer, 2000; Göpferich, 2015)

• Cooperative writing (Toorenaar & Rijlaarsdam, 2011, Lehnen, 2000)

• Production of auxiliary texts (Bräuer & Schindler, 2011)

• Text recycling (Bräuer & Schindler, 2011)

• Peer-Feedback and text revision (Harris & Graham, 2009, Rijlaarsdam et al., 2008)



CPH 2019 / Elfriede Witschel / Gerda Wobik / University College of Teacher Education Carinthia, Austria

Reading

Writing

Reading

„Text competence“ means: Reading texts on your own, relating what hasbeen read with one‘s own knowledge, using new information for thinking, speaking and action. Generating texts and communicating thoughts and intentions adequately. (Portmann-Tselikas, 2005, p.1f.)

11

Fig. 3: Reading and writing are intertwined

1.2 Conceptual Framework: Four Design Principles2. ReadingWritingReading: Research Questions

Principal research question:

• What are the effects of arrangements of tasks that intertwinereading and writing on processes and products?

Subsidiary research questions:• Does the connection between reading and writing (tasks: e.g. auxiliary

texts) have an influence on text quality on the linguistic level (lexicalcompetence) ?

• Does emphasis on the writing process (e.g. criteria based peer-feedback) influence text quality on the linguistic level (lexical competece)?


1.3 Research Design and Methodology

1.3 Research Design and Methodology

• Multi-method approach, Symbolic Interactionism (Blumer 2013): – Pre-/post tests

– Expert interviews (teachers and learners)

– Intervention (Graham & Harris, 2014): combination betweenlaboratory study and field study (Marx & Steinhoff 2017)

– Questionnaires

– Linguistic text analyses (Göpferich, 2015; Brinker et al., 2014)

• Multi-perspective approach– Teaching German (=L1)/Literature

– Pedagogy

– Linguistics


2. The Study – Empirical View

Reading Strategies

Skimming, detecting information, summarizing

Block 2: While reading: Working with a text

Decoding local and global coherences

Block 1: Pre-reading

Tuning into the topic / activating prior knowledge/ relievingvocabulary problems

Block 3: Post reading: Text writing /work on one‘s own text

Writing task – writing process

Interrelation between Reading and Writing

Alleviating the writing process: auxiliary texts

Aspects of Literary Learning

Develop mental pictures , subjective involvement /preciseperception, understand particular perspectives etc.

Reflexion/Metacognitive Reflexion

Task evaluation / Metacognition

Writing processes

Last version= „perfect version“

Text criteria

Self assessment, Peer-Feedback


Fig. 4: The arrangement of tasks: basic concept

2.1 Sample

2. The Study – Empirical Part2.1 Sample


Class Numberofstudents

M Fem Special educationalneeds

German is l1

German is not l1

Dropouts in year 1

Texts

1A (20) 18 (11) 9

9 (5) 4 (9) 7 11 2

1B 21 9 12 0 8 13 0

Inter-ventiongroup

39 18 21 4 15 24 2 Int. 1: 33Int. 2: 34

Control group

Int. 1: 28Int. 2: 34

2.2 First Selected Results

Linguistic analyses

• MAXQDA• Corpus based approach plus• Corpus driven approach (Tognini-Bonelli, 2001)• Inter- and intracoder reliability (van den Hoonaard, 2008)

Here:• Lexical competence: vocabulary depth, fluency and

vocabulary breadth (Alber, 2016)• Text competence:

− Use of past tense as prominent feature of narrative structure(Uhl, 2016)

− Use of „say“ or synonyms of „say“ as indicator for protagonists‘ perspectives (Uhl, 2016)


Descriptive analysesUse of language Intervention 1


86

47

275

85

151

115

38

113

173

48

205

106

Omission of past tense

Exceptional vocabulary

Repetition of words

Identical sentence beginnings

Use of correct synonyms: "go"/"say"

Use of "go"/"say"

Intervention 1: A picture storyLanguage

Intervention Group (n=28) vs. Control Group (n=28)Frequencies

control group intervention group

Descriptive analysesUse of language Intervention 2


159

39

165

68

54

119

59

77

150

25

140

131

Omission of past tense

Exceptional vocabulary

Repetition of words

Identical sentence beginnings

Use of correct synonyms: "go"/"say"

Use of "go"/"say"

Intervention 2: A gripping storyLanguage

Intervention Group (n=33) vs. Control Group (n=33)Frequencies

control group intervention group

,000 ͨ

Comparison: Intervention 1 – Intervention 2Significant Results

Tokens of „say“ Tokens ofsynonyms of„say“

Tokens of „go“ Tokens ofsynonyms of„go“

Intervention 1 ,000 ͨ ,000 ͨ ,000 ͨ ,000 ͨ

Intervention 2 ,000 ͨ ,000 ͨ ,000 ͨ ,000 ͨ


Tokens of „say“ Tokens of synonymsof „say“

Intervention 1 – Intervention 2 ,070 ,003

3. Conclusion and Discussion

3. Conclusion und Discussion

Tendencies:

• Narrative structure

- Past tense: Putting attention on writing processes (peer-feedback) seems to have an effect on text quality

• Taking protagonists’ perspective

- Use of “say”: Products show improved quality as regards direct speech

• Lexical competence

- Use of synonyms of “say” and “go”

• Importance of the link between reading and writing: tasks that enhance language work with the text: synonyms of “say” and “go”

• Further data analyses are necessary to substantiate these first tentative results: connect results with the use of auxiliary texts, peer-feedback etc.


References 1

• Alber, K. (2016). Wortschatzumfang, Wortschatztiefe und Verarbeitungsgeschwindigkeit – Analyse der lexikalischen Kompetenz. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik 65, p. 107-128.

• Becker-Mrotzek, & M. Böttcher, I. (2006). Schreibkompetenz: entwickeln und beurteilen. Praxishandbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II. 3rd ed., Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.

• Breit, S.; Bruneforth, M. & Schreiner, C. (Eds., 2017). Standardüberprüfung 2015 Deutsch, 4. Schulstufe. Bundesergebnisbericht. Salzburg. Retrieved from: https://www.bifie.at/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/BiSt_UE_D8_2016_Bundesergebnisbericht.pdf

• Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. California: University Press.• Bräuer, Gerd (2000): Schreiben als reflexive Praxis. Freiburg: Fillibach.• Bräuer, G., & Schindler, K. (2011). Authentische Schreibaufgaben – ein Konzept. In G Bräuer, K. Schindler, (Eds.),

Schreibarrangements für Schule, Hochschule, Beruf (pp.12–63). Freiburg im Breisgau: Fillibach.• Brinker, K; Cölfen, H. & Pappert, S (2014). Linguistische Textanalyse. Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. Berlin:

Schmidt.• Feilke, H. (2017). Schreibdidaktische Konzepte. InM Becker-Mrotzek; J. Grabowski & T. Steinhoff (Eds.) Forschungshandbuch

empirische Schreibdidaktik. Münster: Waxmann, p. 153-171.• Göpferich, S. (2015). Text Competence and Academic Multiliteracy. From Text Linguistics to Literacy Development. Tübingen:

Narr Francke Attempto.• Hayes, J. R.; Flower, L. S. (1980). The Dynamics of Composing: Making Plans and Juggling Constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R.

Steinberg (Eds.): Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, S. 31–50.• Hayes, J. R. (1996). A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing. In C. M. Levy, S. E. Ransdell, (Eds.):

The Science of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Mahwah, N. J: L. Erlbaum, p. 1-27.• Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. British

Journal of Education Psychology, DOI: 10.1348/978185409X422542• Lehnen, K. (2000). Kooperative Textproduktion. Zur gemeinsamen Herstellung wissenschaftlicher Texte im Vergleich von

ungeübten, fortgeschrittenen und sehr geübten SchreiberInnen. Dissertation Bielefeld. Retrieved from: http://bieson.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/volltexte/2004/495/index.html/2301403

• Marx, N, & Steinhoff T. (2017). Unterrichtsbezogene Interventionen. In M. Becker-Mrotzek; J. Grabowski & T. Steinhoff (Eds.): Forschungshandbuch empirische Schreibdidaktik. Münster/New York: Waxman, p. 253-266.


https://www.bifie.at/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/BiSt_UE_D8_2016_Bundesergebnisbericht.pdf

http://bieson.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/volltexte/2004/495/index.html

References 2• Rosebrock, C. & Nix, D. (2017). Grundlagen der Lesedidaktik. Und der systematischen schulischen

Leseförderung. 8th., corr. edition, Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren.

• Portmann-Tselikas, Paul (2005): Was ist Textkompetenz? Retrieved from: https://www.ds.uzh.ch/phpfi/wiki/Textkompetenz/uploads/Main/PortmannTextkompetenz.pdf (access: 2010/07/15).

• Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., van Steendam, E., van den Bergh, H. (2008). Observation of peers in learning to write: practice and research. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 53-83. DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.3

• Saxalber, A.; Witschel, E. & Edtstadler, K. (2012). Fachdidaktische Analysen zum Leseunterricht an österreichischen Schulen. In F. Eder, (Ed.): PISA 2009 – nationale Zusatzanalysen für Österreich. Münster, München u. a.: Waxmann, S. 59–95.

• Saxalber, A. & Witschel, E. (2013). Eine Maßnahme der begleitenden Forschung zur Reform der Reife- und Diplomprüfung Deutsch: Online-Befragung von LehrerInnen und SchülerInnen 2011. Institut für Deutschdidaktik der Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, unveröff. Forschungsbericht.

• Struger, J. (2013). Methodische Zugänge zum Begriff der Textkompetenz. Was ist sie und wie kann sie im Unterricht vermittelt werden? ide. informationen zur deutschdidaktik, 37/4 („Textkompetenz“), p. 7–11.

• Tognini-Bonelli E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

• Toorenaar, A., Rijlaarsdam, G. (2011). Instructional Theory of Language Lessons. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 11, pp. 57-89. Retrieved from: http:// dx.doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2011.0104

• Uhl, B. (2016). Quantitative Inhaltsanalyse. In J.M. Boelmann (Ed). Empirische Erhebungs- und Auswertungsverfahren in der deutschdidaktischen Forschung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider, p. 325-342.

• Van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2008). Inter- and Intracoder Reliability. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909

• Witschel, E. (2017). Textkompetenz fördern durch LesenSchreibenLesen. Die didaktische Bedeutung von Aufgabenarrangements im kompetenzorientierten Deutschunterricht . Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.


https://www.ds.uzh.ch/phpfi/wiki/Textkompetenz/uploads/Main/PortmannTextkompetenz.pdf

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909

Thank you for your attention!


ReadingWritingReading. An Intervention Study at Lower...

Documents

Transcript of ReadingWritingReading. An Intervention Study at Lower...