写作创造性和辩论性的文章:有什么区别?探索任务类型如何影响学生的写作行为和表现

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI:10.17239/l1esll-2021.21.01.11
A. Pezé, T. Janssen, Gert Rijlaarsdam, D. V. Weijen
{"title":"写作创造性和辩论性的文章:有什么区别?探索任务类型如何影响学生的写作行为和表现","authors":"A. Pezé, T. Janssen, Gert Rijlaarsdam, D. V. Weijen","doi":"10.17239/l1esll-2021.21.01.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to gain insight into writing processes of secondary school students when con-fronted with fictional and expressive creative writing prompts compared to argumentative writing prompts. Twenty participants (Grade 10-11) each wrote eight texts, four based on creative prompts, the other four based on argumentative prompts, within a set time. A keystroke logging program recorded participants' writing processes. Texts were rated on global quality. Writing motivation and creativity were measured as well. Results showed that creative text production processes had specific features. Students' writing processes were faster, more stable and resulted in longer texts, and fewer revisions. Furthermore, creative as well as argumentative text quality improved if students wrote longer texts in short production cycles. Explorative analyses showed that learner characteristics correlate with writing behaviour as well as with text quality. Students wrote longer texts, had higher writing speed, and wrote better texts when they reported a more positive attitude towards writing and considered themselves more creative. Finally, students who believed in their own creative ability and/or believed that writing requires personal com- mitment wrote significantly better creative texts. These findings are discussed in the light of the aim to re-introduce creative writing in the Dutch curriculum.","PeriodicalId":43406,"journal":{"name":"L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Writing creative and argumentative texts: What's the difference? Exploring how task type affects students' writing behaviour and performance\",\"authors\":\"A. Pezé, T. Janssen, Gert Rijlaarsdam, D. V. Weijen\",\"doi\":\"10.17239/l1esll-2021.21.01.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this study was to gain insight into writing processes of secondary school students when con-fronted with fictional and expressive creative writing prompts compared to argumentative writing prompts. Twenty participants (Grade 10-11) each wrote eight texts, four based on creative prompts, the other four based on argumentative prompts, within a set time. A keystroke logging program recorded participants' writing processes. Texts were rated on global quality. Writing motivation and creativity were measured as well. Results showed that creative text production processes had specific features. Students' writing processes were faster, more stable and resulted in longer texts, and fewer revisions. Furthermore, creative as well as argumentative text quality improved if students wrote longer texts in short production cycles. Explorative analyses showed that learner characteristics correlate with writing behaviour as well as with text quality. Students wrote longer texts, had higher writing speed, and wrote better texts when they reported a more positive attitude towards writing and considered themselves more creative. Finally, students who believed in their own creative ability and/or believed that writing requires personal com- mitment wrote significantly better creative texts. These findings are discussed in the light of the aim to re-introduce creative writing in the Dutch curriculum.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17239/l1esll-2021.21.01.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17239/l1esll-2021.21.01.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本研究的目的是了解中学生在面对虚构和表达性创意写作提示和议论文写作提示时的写作过程。20名参与者(10-11年级)在规定的时间内每人写8篇文章,其中4篇基于创造性提示,另外4篇基于辩论性提示。一个击键记录程序记录了参与者的书写过程。文本根据全球质量进行评分。写作动机和创造力也被测量。结果表明,创意文本的生产过程具有特定的特征。学生们的写作过程更快,更稳定,并且产生了更长的文本,更少的修改。此外,如果学生在较短的写作周期内写出较长的文章,创造性和论证性的文章质量都会得到提高。探索性分析表明,学习者特征与写作行为以及文本质量相关。当学生们对写作持更积极的态度,认为自己更有创造力时,他们写的文章更长,写得更快,写得更好。最后,那些相信自己的创造能力和/或相信写作需要个人投入的学生写出了更好的创造性文章。这些发现是在荷兰课程重新引入创造性写作的目的的光讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Writing creative and argumentative texts: What's the difference? Exploring how task type affects students' writing behaviour and performance
The aim of this study was to gain insight into writing processes of secondary school students when con-fronted with fictional and expressive creative writing prompts compared to argumentative writing prompts. Twenty participants (Grade 10-11) each wrote eight texts, four based on creative prompts, the other four based on argumentative prompts, within a set time. A keystroke logging program recorded participants' writing processes. Texts were rated on global quality. Writing motivation and creativity were measured as well. Results showed that creative text production processes had specific features. Students' writing processes were faster, more stable and resulted in longer texts, and fewer revisions. Furthermore, creative as well as argumentative text quality improved if students wrote longer texts in short production cycles. Explorative analyses showed that learner characteristics correlate with writing behaviour as well as with text quality. Students wrote longer texts, had higher writing speed, and wrote better texts when they reported a more positive attitude towards writing and considered themselves more creative. Finally, students who believed in their own creative ability and/or believed that writing requires personal com- mitment wrote significantly better creative texts. These findings are discussed in the light of the aim to re-introduce creative writing in the Dutch curriculum.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature
L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Writing to Learn History: An Instructional Design Study High school students’ attentional stance, modes of reading engagement, and self-insight during literary reading Developing the “Language Profile Test” for Greek Students aged 11-15 Years. Strategies for Expository and Literary Texts Separating the relevant from the irrelevant: Factors influencing L1 student teachers’ ability to discern (ir)relevant arguments in time-pressured grammatical discussions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1