再给我一次机会

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola, M. Hidalgo
{"title":"再给我一次机会","authors":"Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola, M. Hidalgo","doi":"10.1075/ltyl.20009.laz","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Collaborative writing (CW) and task repetition have been claimed to aid language acquisition. Students produce\n better texts when writing with a peer and their drafts improve if they write the same composition twice (same task repetition,\n STR). However, little is known about young learners, about the effects of combining both constructs and, finally, about a more\n common type of repetition in language lessons: repeating the same procedure with different content (procedural task repetition,\n PTR). This study analyses the effects of CW (vs. individual writing) and of PTR (vs. STR). To do so, the writings of 59 Spanish\n young learners (aged 11) of English divided into four groups were analysed. Two of these groups (N = 9,\n N = 10) wrote a composition individually while two (N = 20, N = 20) wrote a\n composition in pairs. A week later, one individual (N = 9) and one collaborative group (N = 20)\n wrote the same composition again (STR) while the other individual (N = 10) and collaborative\n (N = 20) groups wrote a new composition following the same procedure (PTR). Unlike findings from adult learners,\n our students’ drafts show no differences that could be attributed to the collaboration. However, some improvements upon repetition\n were hinted at, with students in the STR group obtaining greater holistic rates.","PeriodicalId":29728,"journal":{"name":"Language Teaching for Young Learners","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Give me a second chance\",\"authors\":\"Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola, M. Hidalgo\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/ltyl.20009.laz\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Collaborative writing (CW) and task repetition have been claimed to aid language acquisition. Students produce\\n better texts when writing with a peer and their drafts improve if they write the same composition twice (same task repetition,\\n STR). However, little is known about young learners, about the effects of combining both constructs and, finally, about a more\\n common type of repetition in language lessons: repeating the same procedure with different content (procedural task repetition,\\n PTR). This study analyses the effects of CW (vs. individual writing) and of PTR (vs. STR). To do so, the writings of 59 Spanish\\n young learners (aged 11) of English divided into four groups were analysed. Two of these groups (N = 9,\\n N = 10) wrote a composition individually while two (N = 20, N = 20) wrote a\\n composition in pairs. A week later, one individual (N = 9) and one collaborative group (N = 20)\\n wrote the same composition again (STR) while the other individual (N = 10) and collaborative\\n (N = 20) groups wrote a new composition following the same procedure (PTR). Unlike findings from adult learners,\\n our students’ drafts show no differences that could be attributed to the collaboration. However, some improvements upon repetition\\n were hinted at, with students in the STR group obtaining greater holistic rates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Teaching for Young Learners\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Teaching for Young Learners\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20009.laz\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Teaching for Young Learners","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20009.laz","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

协作写作(CW)和任务重复被认为有助于语言习得。与同学一起写作时,学生会写出更好的文章,如果他们把同样的文章写两遍,他们的草稿也会得到改善。然而,关于年轻学习者,结合这两种结构的影响,以及最后,关于语言课程中更常见的重复类型:用不同的内容重复相同的过程(程序任务重复,PTR),我们知之甚少。本研究分析了连续写作(相对于个人写作)和PTR(相对于STR)的影响。为此,我们将59名11岁的西班牙英语学习者分为四组,对他们的写作进行了分析。其中两组(N = 9,N = 10)单独写一篇作文,两组(N = 20,N = 20)结对写一篇作文。一周后,一个个人(N = 9)和一个协作组(N = 20)再次写了相同的作文(STR),而另一个个人(N = 10)和协作组(N = 20)按照相同的程序写了一篇新作文(PTR)。与成人学习者的研究结果不同,我们学生的草稿没有显示出可以归因于合作的差异。然而,重复学习也有一些改善,STR组的学生获得了更高的整体成绩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Give me a second chance
Collaborative writing (CW) and task repetition have been claimed to aid language acquisition. Students produce better texts when writing with a peer and their drafts improve if they write the same composition twice (same task repetition, STR). However, little is known about young learners, about the effects of combining both constructs and, finally, about a more common type of repetition in language lessons: repeating the same procedure with different content (procedural task repetition, PTR). This study analyses the effects of CW (vs. individual writing) and of PTR (vs. STR). To do so, the writings of 59 Spanish young learners (aged 11) of English divided into four groups were analysed. Two of these groups (N = 9, N = 10) wrote a composition individually while two (N = 20, N = 20) wrote a composition in pairs. A week later, one individual (N = 9) and one collaborative group (N = 20) wrote the same composition again (STR) while the other individual (N = 10) and collaborative (N = 20) groups wrote a new composition following the same procedure (PTR). Unlike findings from adult learners, our students’ drafts show no differences that could be attributed to the collaboration. However, some improvements upon repetition were hinted at, with students in the STR group obtaining greater holistic rates.
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信