0.        Preparations of students

35 members were divided into 6 groups, each groups read all articles. 

Analysis if text books:

1)       Groups A, B analyze and compare content of writing textbook of secondary and high school.

2)       Groups C, D: Analyze and compare methodology of writing textbook of secondary and high school. 

3)       Groups E, F: Analyze and compare writing practical of writing textbook of secondary and high school.

Each group will realize clearly strong and weak points of writing program in secondary and high school.

1.        Session 1: Practice of Learning and Teaching of Writing in Vietnam and The Netherlands

Monday morning, 8.00-11.00; 9.30 break

 

To define common grounds, we explore in a workshop (20 participants or less?) the writing curriculum philosophy and practice in Vietnam and the Netherlands. Participants present prepared group papers, in which they outline the writing curriculum in theory, in textbook and in practice (intended, operational and experienced curriculum). Discussion will be focussed on strengths and weaknesses in theory and practice. A list of descriptive and analytical terms for the papers is provided in Appendix A.

 

Session scenario/format

1)       Introduction of class and workshop provider, and research programme the workshop provider is engaged in; referring to individual profiles read

2)       Introduction of programme and tasks:

a.        Group produces questions

                                                               i.      Three test questions per article; format A4:

1.        First half:

a.        Reference (author, title)

b.       Question

2.        Second half: answer

                                                              ii.      One question to the author (max five articles): in an email format to the author.

                                                            iii.      Bring stack with questions Wednesday

b.       Redraft your best lesson, based on the new input and discussions: poster format Thursday afternoon

3)       Groups present group papers, in Vietnamese; 10-15 minutes per group ABCDEF; interpreters provide after each presentation a slide with a summary

4)       Gert presents Dutch curriculum for writing:

a.        Lower Secondary

b.       Upper Secondary

c.        Upper Secondary text book

Summing up Vietnamese presentations

2.        Session 2: New concepts of learning in the writing curriculum: learning by observation

Monday afternoon, 13.30-16.30

 

Aim:

1)       To provide insight in new approaches in teaching writing.

 

Workshop session about Readers’ feedback will be included, in which participants simulate a lesson (may range from primary upper classes to upper secondary education). Demonstration is included with a short film about how to arrange different roles in classrooms, and how to design an active writing class.

 

Session scenario: observational learning

Observing writers:

1)       Argumentative texts: Workshop 2ObservationalLearningCouzijn&Braaksma

2)       Sentence combining: Zimmerman & Kitsantas,

3)       Synthesis texts Raedts (sentence combining; synthesis writing)

4)       Revising (Van Steendam, English as a foreign language)

 

Observing Readers (feedback to writers

5)       Workshop 2ObservationalLearningInstructionaltexts (‘life’ feedback)

 

Acting as a Reader

6)       Holliwell & McCutchen, tangram desciptions

7)       Effect of peer feedback

 

Observing and Reader feedback in practice:

8)       Yummy yummy case

 

Theory presentation

 

 

3.        Session 3:  Individual writing strategies in writing to learn (and observing writing strategies)

Tuesday afternoon, 13.30-16.30

 

Aim is to show how important knowledge about individual strategies is, especially when writing activities are used in other subject areas, like literature. We demonstrate that different combinations of individual writing strategies/styles and learning environment lead to different learning effects (Kieft & Rijlaarsdam; 2003; 2004,  2005, & 2007).

 

Individual writing strategies:

1)       Individual test.  (Interpreter read test items aloud in Vietnamese): 20 minutes

2)       Computer room. Writing a short letter to an author of one of the articles.  Using Input log (computer room). Save data on memory stick.  Print out data file. Print out text[1]. 15 minutes writing. Total time (going to room, starting computers etc: 30 minutes)

3)       Powerpoint Presentation:

WritingtoLearn&IndividualStrategiesVersionAugust2007. Interaction between learning condition and individual writing style. (30 minutes)

4)       Playing back Gert’s demonstration tekst (inputlog); observation task: groups of three: 1=pauses, 2= revisions, 3= production pace. (10 minutes)

5)       Reading some else’s data. Play back the process of a colleague, read the analysis sheet, make notes for a short report describing the process. Home work: report, handing in the report the next day (Going to the computer room, playing back, making notes: 40 minutes).

6)       Short demonstration of Camtasia (free ware; 30 days free trial): screen recorder. Can be used for all computer work (powerpoint, web design, text production].

7)       Exploring the use of this tool in writing education.

 

4.        Session 4: Effective Components of Writing edcuation and results form Writing Process Research

Wednesday afternoon, 13.30-16.30

Aims:

1)       to provide an overview of research about writing processes and relations about writing processes and quality of texts (Breetvelt, Rijlaarsdam & Van den Bergh, 1994; Rijlaarsdam, & Van den Bergh, 1996; Van den Bergh & Rijlaarsdam, 1996; Van den Bergh, & Rijlaarsdam, 1999; Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, Van den Bergh, & Van Hout-Wolters, 2004, Rijlaarsdam, Couzijn, & Van den Bergh, 2004). What role plays planning, translation and revision in writing processes, under which conditions, in which writers? How can we improve planning, translation and revision processes in the writing curriculum? Participants will discuss some thinking aloud protocols (15 year olds, writing in English as a foreign language) (60 minutes). Powerpoint presentation.

2)       Models of Writing Processes

3)       To raise awareness of crucial elements in writing curriculum, based on reviews/meta-analyses (Hillocks, 1986, Graham 2007) and a recent research handbook (Rijlaarsdam, Van den Bergh, & Couzijn, 2004).To provide an overview of most successful components of writing instruction.

Effective components of writing instruction: Reviews (75 minutes). In this session we will present and discuss two reviews (1986, 2007).

Presentation Powerpoint Hillocks,

Presentation Powerpoint Graham & Perrin 2007 (not included)

 

Duration: three hours.

5.        Sesssion 5: presentation of revised lessons

Thursday afternoon 13.30-16.30

 

Students present in a poster session their lesson plans. These plans may be based on the lessons they wrote about for their preparation paper, but might also be new inventions. Poster materials are available from 12.30. All posters should be ready to be read at 13.30.

Session scenario:

1)       General assembly, explanation of how to proceed.

2)       15 minutes strolling around

3)       Grouping the posters in six groups of 6 (ABCDEF). Guided tour in six groups (new groupings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Short presentation (five minutes) and questions; then free choice for interaction. 60 minutes.

4)       Groups ABCDEF sit down and collect items: In which respect were the lessons improved? 15 minutes. Each group prepares a transparency I(select two categories of items).

5)       General meeting:

a.        In what respect can Vietnamese text books be improved; each group (A, B, C, D, E, F) presents their ideas:

b.       Gert tries to wrap up.

6)       Evaluation & Farewell

Optional Session: including the learning to learn paradigm into writing classes

Aim of this session is to demonstrate how the learning to learn paradigm can be included in the writing lessons, based on research in The Netherlands (Bonset & Rijlaars­dam, 2004). First we will demonstrate how different levels of self sustained learning can be implemented in an existing lesson series (varying from a low level to a high level). Then participants will try to redesign a lesson series they developed in advance (or extracted from the Vietnamese textbook), including the learning to learn paradigm.

1)       How revision of textbooks can enhance autonomous learning. Powerpoint

2)       Key concepts

3)       Model for analysis

4)       Teacher activities

5)       Independent learning scheme

6.        Session 6: Connecting Writing with the other skills and the teaching of literature

7.        Evaluation

Summing up, sharing and discussion about learning experiences. Relating mini course to practice (workshop 1) and research plans (MA-thesis).


Appendix A: Analysis Textbook/curriculum writing
in secondary education

1.        Workshop 1: Practice in Vietnam and the netherlands

Preparation time needed: three hours.

To define common grounds, we explore in a workshop (20 participants or less?) the writing curriculum philosophy and practice in Vietnam and the Netherlands. Participants present prepared group papers, in which they outline the writing curriculum in theory, in textbook and in practice (intended, operational and experienced curriculum). Discussion will be focussed on strengths and weaknesses in theory and practice.

A list of descriptive and analytical terms for the papers are available  (see below).

1.1    Preparation of group presentations

Aim: Assessing the quality of the writing curriculum in secondary education, confronting curriculum philosophy with curriculum practice.

Preparation: analysing the Vietnamese textbook for Vietnamese, one group for lower secondary, one for higher secondary. If a Vietnamese instrument for analysis is available, this instrument could be used; other wise the frame of reference we applied in the Netherlands (below) could be applied. All three perspectives (see Frame of Reference below) must be covered during the workshop, as well as lower and upper secondary. I will leave it to the group and Prof. Dr Nam how the groups of participants is divided for the preparation and presentation: two groups (one for lower, one for upper secondary), or six (two levels of secondary education times three perspectives; see below). If time is limited, than focussing on perspective 1 and 2 is most adequate.

 

Presentation: Group presentations (20 minutes, with transparencies and/or handouts).

1.2    Frame of reference to analyse text books for L1

In the Netherlands, we developed and tried out a system for assessing the quality of textbooks for modern languages, for all skills. From this instrument, a shortened version could help us to discuss the Vietnamese situation and to compare the Vietnamese with the Dutch situation.

The description of the textbook could follow the three perspectives offered below.

1.2.1           The perspective of content

This perspective consisted of three sub-aspects. In the first place, list all items from the examination programme or items from the national curriculum or the key aims, and describe to which extent the textbook covers the curriculum/examination requirements. Try to assess the balance: does the text book reflects the same dominance of key-aims/curriculum requirements as the national curriculum requirements? Or did text books authors make a different choice in focussing on aims? So the point of reference of assessment is the national curriculum/examination programme etc.

Second, assess to which extent the content of the textbook represents a realistic picture of Vietnam. Texts and illustrations should depict a representative and realistic picture of the country, and thus contribute to intercultural learning.

Thirdly, assess to which extent the content reflected the state of the art with respect to the current scientific discussion. Are assumptions about learning and writing correct and up-to-date and does the package represent what we know about writing processes and about for instance argumentative structures of texts, about how to distinguish a statement from an argument.

1.2.2           The perspective of methodology

This perspective consisted of four questions.

1)       Does the package contain (very few, few, not few-not many, many, very many) exercises and tasks that facilitate the student's development towards a competent language user. More in detail: look for: authentic (albeit simulated) communicative tasks, assignments for orientation and reflection on the process and the product of the task.

2)       Does the package present (very few, few, not few-not many, many, very many) exercises and tasks that facilitate strategic language teaching and learning? Does it teach the students strategies to find out how to overcome task difficulties? More in detail: look for: support during the process of writing and speaking, the process of analysing, interpreting and evaluating written and oral texts, the choice and the use of resources and media.

3)       For assessing the methodology of transfer: Does the package contain (very few, few, not few-not many, many very many) texts, tasks and/or exercises which facilitate that students relate their learning to knowledge and skills of

·         other parts of the language curriculum (i.e., relating writing to reading, or speaking to writing),

·         other school subjects (i.e. , relating the language curriculum to geography, history) or to

·         other communicative situations (i.e., relating what is learnt to what is learnt before (backward transfer) or to

o        new communicative or learning situations (forward transfer).

4)       For assessing the methodology of ‘learning to learn’: Does the package contain (very few, few, not few-not many, many, very many) exercises and tasks that enable students to (learn to) grow towards ‘autonomous learning’? [2]

1.2.3           The perspective of practice

This perspective consisted of the following sub-aspects.

1)       User friendliness for the teacher, meaning that the package should be complete including a teacher‘s guide. It should contain suggestions for planning and for teaching lessons adequately in the context of the new examination programme.

2)       User friendliness for students, meaning that the package should be easily accessible containing user’s guidelines, a list of contents, a register etc. The language and instruction should be clear. The layout should support adequate use. Tasks should be designed in such a way that they can be carried out autonomously.

3)       Attractiveness for teacher and student, meaning that the content should be geared to the interest of students, there should be a variation in learners’ activities, working methods and the use of media.

4)       Differentiation, meaning that the package should give possibilities to differentiate according to level, working speed, interest etc.

5)       Tests and evaluation, meaning that the package should give suggestions for the organisation of the school exam. It should contain tests with a variation of questions and assignments and suggestions for the preparation for the examination.

Appendix B. Participants’ Preparation Can Tho MA Course

Interweaving the learning to learn paradigm into the curriculum of Vietnam in secondary education

1.        Presentation & demonstration: including the learning to learn paradigm into writing classes

Aim of this session is to demonstrate how the learning to learn paradigm can be included in the writing lessons, based on research in The Netherlands (Bonset & Rijlaars­dam, 2004). First we will demonstrate how different levels of self sustained learning can be implemented in an existing lesson series (varying from a low level to a high level). Then participants will try to redesign a lesson series they developed in advance (or extracted from the Vietnamese textbook), including the learning to learn paradigm.

1.1    Necessary Preparation of group presentations

Groups of participants (groups of two to four participants) bring a lesson series on writing, taken from their practice or from the textbook, to the workshop. Choose an unit of lesson series that has good qualities/potential to be a good lesson.



[1] Might be homework at the end of  session 2;  write a short letter to an author of one of the chapters/articles you read, with a question for explanation. Hand in the texts the following morning (one page max).

[2] Because of the newness of this paradigm in the Dutch curriculum, we added a rather long description of the different stages to reach autonomous learning, based on an analysis by Bonset & Rijlaarsdam (2004). This checklist requires from analysts to assess who (student only, student and teacher, teacher only) can make choices in planning the learning process, in executing the learning task, and in regulating the learning process (who regulates the learning process, who delivers feed back on process and on product of learning, who evaluates the quality of learning)?