Article published In: Task-Based Language Teaching:
Edited by Kris Van den Branden and Machteld Verhelst
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 152] 2006
► pp. 111–126
Motivating Writing Education
Published online: 1 January 2006
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017865
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017865
Abstract
Writing can turn into a real passion. However, teaching and learning writing skills is hardly ever the most motivating component of a language curriculum. Writing currricula (i) are often purely skill oriented -at the expense of more cognitive and metacognitive aspects-, (ii) involving oneto- one communication using traditional tools, (iii) lacking clearly differentiated and sequenced goals per "level", (iv) fail to be embedded in a research environment, and (v) are seldom related to an overall view on language acquisition and learning.
Inspired by our view on language learning, called "entorno M@estro" -a learning environment which should be Motivador, Agradablemente Academico - pleasant & academic-, Ecologico (1), Semi-integrado, Traslucido -transparent-, Rutinario and Omnimodo -with multiple means-, the ElektraRed-team combined existing and personal software applications in order to turn the teaching and learning process into a blended learning group travel from the smallest linguistic components (letters & words), over chunks of words, collocations, propositions, paragraphs, to a wide variety of text types, a task-based journey where coaches help learners to discover, train and improve their own strengths and weaknesses in comparison with their colleagues and their own former output. Making use of multimedia enabled us also to compare writing results between various levels and training centres, and to classify writing topics and problems according to training levels. In this article we will present the aims and results of our two-year experiment focussing on innovation in writing education through the use of multimedia. We will show how the results of our experiment allow us now to differentiate, and sequence preferential topics per level. Our ultimate aim with the innovation was to make students write better and ... with passion, as well as make teachers enjoy their jobs even more.
References (60)
http://www.cict.co.uk/software/markin/ (accessed on 9-02-2006)
http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.belelektravoc/engels.htm (accessed on 26-06-2006)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ (accessed on 23-06-2006)
http://unilearning.uow.edu.au/academic/3b.html(accessed on 23-06-2006)
http://www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/Resources/blended.htm (accessed on 23-06-2006)
Benítez Figari, R. (2004). Una propuesta de evaluación para la produccion escrita. RLA: Revista de lingüística teórica yaplicada, 421, 67–92.
Bordoy, M. (2002). EI Español en el sistema educativo de los Paises Bajos. Cuadernos Cervantes, 421, 25–31.
Bustos Gisbert, J. M. (1999). Análisis de errores: problemas de tipologización. In J. Fernández González et al. (eds.), Lingüística para el siglo XXI. Vol I1 (303–313). Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Buyse, K., & Torts, G. (1999). Magister. EI tutor electrónico de la Handelshogeschool. Un programa de "auto-estudio guiado" en un curso de español interactivo. In T. Jiménez Juliá, M.C. Losada Aldrey & J.F. Marquez Caneda (eds.). Enfoque comunicativo y Gramatica (pp. 923–935). Santiago: Asele & Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
(2000). EvaM@estra, de semi-automatische evaluatie in de M@estromethode. In K. Buyse et al. (eds.). H-ogelijn-Cahier "Begeleide Zelfstudie (pp. 43–60). Leuven: Acco.
Buyse, K. (2006). Propuesta de una criteriología moderna para materiales y métodos de lengua. In M.I. Pozzo (ed.). Ensenanza de español como lengua extranjera en Argentina. Experiencias y reflexiones (pp. 107–115). Rosario, Argentina: UNR Editora.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.) (2001). Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman.
Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 161–170.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosincratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 147–160.
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (1993a). Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
(1993b). Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
De la Fuente, María J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, Vol. 10/13, 263–295.
Dõrnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 41, 43–69.
Fernández Montoro, D. (2003). Hacia el desarrollo de la habilidad de la expresión escrita y sus implicaciones didácticas en el proceso de adquisición de ELE. Redele: [URL]
Fernández, S. (1997). Interlengua y análisis de errores en el aprendizaje de español como lengua extranjera. Madrid: Edelsa.
Jacobs, G. (1998). Cooperative learning or just grouping students: The difference makes a difference. In W. Renandya & G. Jacobs (eds.). Learners and Language Learning (pp. 145–171). Singapore: SEAMEO.
Jain, M.P.(1984). Error Analysis: Source, Cause and Significance. In J.C. Richards (ed.). Error Analysis: Perspectives of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 189–215). London: Longman.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 191, 37–66.
Muñoz Liceras, J.M. (ed.) (1992). La adquisición de lenguas extranjeras: hacia un modelo de análisis de la interlengua. Madrid: Visor.
Pastor Cesteros, S., & Salazar García, V. (eds.) (2001). Tendencias y líneas de investigación en adquisición de segundas lenguas. Estudios de lingüística. Universidad de Alicante. Edición electronica. [URL] (13–05-05).
Penades, I. (2003). Las clasificaciones de errores lingiiisticos en el marco del analisis de errores. Lingilistica en la red. Alcala de Henares: Universidad de Alcala de Henares.
Rescorla, L., & Okuda, S. (1987). Modular patterns in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 81, 281–308.
Romera, Á.-M. (1998). EI error como recurso de didáctica contrastiva (nivel superior). Frecuencia-L, 81, 38–41.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., P. Skehan & M. Swain (eds.). Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 119–34). Harlow: Longman.
Santos Gargallo, I. (1992). La enseñanza de segundas lenguas. Análisis de errores en la expresión escrita de estudiantes de español cuya lengua nativa es el serbo-croata. Tesis doctoral. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
(1993). Análisis contrastivo, análisis de errores e inter/engua en el marco de la Iingüística contrastiva. Madrid: Sintesis.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 111, 129–58.
(1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 111, 11–26.
Skær, S. (2004). EI análisis de errores y su impacto en la comunicación en textos escritos por alumnos noruegos en su examen final del bachillerato. Memoria de Máster en Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera. Director: Concepcion Moreno. Madrid: Universidad Antonio de Nebrija.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 171,38–62.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 11, 185–211.
Slager, E. (1990). Valkuilen en valse vrienden. Leidraad voor het vertalen SpaanslNederiands. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
Stieger, A. (2004). Estudio de errores que se producen en el aprendizaje del español como lengua extranjera por parte de alum nos cuya lengua materna es el húngaro. Cuadernos Cervantes, 511, 31–37.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 51, 29–53.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–52). Rowley, Massachussets: Newbury House.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.
Torijano Pérez, J.A. (2004). Errores de aprendizaje, aprendizaje de los errores. Madrid: ArcoLibros.
Vázquez, G. (1991). Análisis de errores yaprendizaje de espaiioillengua extranjera. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
GENÇ ERSOY, Berrin & Derya GÖL DEDE
Buyse, Kris, Lydia Fernández Pereda & Katrien Verveckken
2016. The Aprescrilov corpus, or broadening the horizon of Spanish language learning in Flanders. In Spanish Learner Corpus Research [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 78], ► pp. 143 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
