masterThesis
The influence of graphic organizers in A1 sixth graders' argumentative writing skill in an EFL context
Fecha
2014-11-12Registro en:
Adam, J. (1992). Les textes: types et prototypes - Récit, description, argumentation et dialogue
[Texts: types and prototypes - Narration, description, argumentation and dialogue].
Paris, France: Nathan.
Adcock, A. (2000). Effects of cognitive load on processing and performance. Unpublished
manuscript, Instructional Media Lab, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing: With commentaries by
Ronald T. Kellogg & John R. Hayes (Vol. 9). New York, NY: Springer.
Alvermann, D. E., & Boothby, P. R. (1986). Children's transfer of graphic organizer instruction.
Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 7(2), 87-100.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P., & Wittrock, M. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision
of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Antaki, C., & Leudar, I. (1990). Claim-backing and other explanatory genres in talk. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 9(4), 279-292.
Apotheloz, D., & Mieville, P. (1989). Cohérence et discours argumenté [Coherence and the
argumentative discourse]. In M. Charolles (Ed.), The resolution of discourse (pp. 68-87).
Hamburg, Germany: Buske Verlag.
Apothéloz, D. (1990). The development of cohesion in writing: Preliminary research on
anaphoric procedures and thematic planning in texts by children. In M. Spoelders (Ed.)
Literacy acquisition (pp. 53-70). Lier, Belgium: J. Van In.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Mullis, I., Latham, A., & Gentile, C. (1994). National Assessment of
Educational Progress 1992: Writing Report Card. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office
Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research. (12 ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning.
Bamberg, B. (1984). Assessing coherence: A reanalysis of essays written for the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, 1969-1979. Research in the Teaching of English,
18(3), 305-319
Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years.
New York, NY: Springer.
Baxendell, B. W. (2003). Consistent, coherent, creative. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(3),
46-53.
Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based
arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285-309.
Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive
processes in writing, (pp. 73-93). Hillsdale, HJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berg, B. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon
Billmeyer, R., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Teaching reading in the content areas: If not me, then
who? (2nd ed.). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy
of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain. London, England: Longmans, Green and Co.
Boscolo, P. (1995). The cognitive approach to writing and writing instruction: A contribution to
a critical appraisal. Cahiers de psychologie cognitive, 14(4), 343-366
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for the
constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Brovero, M. D., (2004). For a clearer view. Book Links, 13(5), 45-46
Bromley, K. D. A., Irwin-DeVitis, L., & Modlo, M. (1995). Graphic organizers: Visual
strategies for active learning. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books.
Bronckart, J.P., Bain, D., Schneuwly, B., Davaud, C., & Pasquier, A. (1985). Le fonctionnement
du discours. [The functioning of discourse]. Neuchâtel, France: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Burns, A. (2003). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.
Byrnes, J. (1998). The nature and development of decision making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cameron,J.(2005).Focussingon the focus group.In I,Hay(Ed), Qualitative Research Methods in Human
Geography (pp. 83-101). NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress
Caviglioli, O. (2002). Thinking skills & eye Q. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.
Caviglioli, O., & Harris, I. (2003). Thinking visually: Step-by-step exercises that promote visual,
auditory and kinesthetic learning. Markham, Canada: Pembroke Publishers.
Chanquoy, L. (1996). Connectives and argumentative text: A developmental study. Paper
presented at the First International Workshop on Argumentative Text Processing,
Barcelona, Spain.
Cochrane, V. (2010). Top level structure: Why use graphic organizers to scaffold developing
writers. Practically Primary, 15(3), 34-37.
Cohen, L. Manion, l. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Coirier, P., & Golder, C. (1993). Writing argumentative text: A developmental study of the
acquisition of supporting structures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(2),
169-181.
Coirier, P., Andriessen, J., & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specificity
of argumentative writing. In P. Coirier & J. Andriessen (Eds.), Foundations of
argumentative text processing (pp.1-28). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam
University Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. C.
Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp.
138-159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Council of Europe (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, and assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
Craig, D. V. (2009). Action research essentials (Vol. 11). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crowhurst, M. (1990). The development of persuasive/argumentative writing. In R. Beach & S.
Hynds (Eds.), Developing discourse practices in adolescence and adulthood (pp. 200-
223). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
De Bernardi, B. (1996). Interestingness and argumentative text production. Paper presented at
the First International Workshop on Argumentative Texts. University of Barcelona,
Spain
De Bernardi, B., & Antolini, E. (2007). Fostering students’ willingness and interest in
argumentative writing: an intervention study. In P. Boscolo & S. Hidi (Eds.), Studies in
Writing: Writing and motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 183-201). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Dent-Young, J. (1993). Write away: For use of English. Hong, Kong, China: Longman.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration
and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Dowell, J., Tscholl, M., Gladisch, T., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2009). Argumentation scheme and
shared online diagramming in case-based collaborative learning. In O’Malley, C.,
Suthers, D., Reimann, P., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (Vol.1, pp. 567-
575). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences
Duch, B. (1996). Problems: A key factor in PBL. About teaching, 50, 78.
Ellis, E. S., & Rock, M. L. (2001). Makes sense strategies: Connecting teaching, learning, and
assessment. Tuscaloosa, AL: Masterminds
Ellis, E. S. (2005). Makes sense strategies (Version 4.0) [Computer software].Tuscaloosa, AL:
Masterminds Publishing
Ellis, E., & Howard, P. (2007). Graphic organizers: Power tools for teaching students with
learning disabilities. Current Practice Alerts, 13, 1-4.
Emerson, K. & Maxwell T.W. (2011). Graphic organisers and writing performance: Improving
undergraduate competence using action research in a workplace internship, Work based
Learning E-Journal, 2(1), 5-23.
Fayol, M., & Schneuwly, B. (1987). La mise en texte et ses problèmes [Textual formulation and
its problems]. In J.L. Chiss, J.P. Laurent, J.C. Meyer, H. Romian & B. Schneuwly (Eds.),
Apprendre/enseigner à produire des textes écrits (pp. 223-240). Brussels, Belgium: De
Boeck
Flynn, P., Mesibov, D., Vermette, P.J. & Smith, M. (2004). Applying standards based on
constructivism: A two-step guide for motivating middle and high school students.
Larchmont, NY: Eye-on-Education.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32(4), 365-387
Foote, C. J., Vermette, P. J., & Battaglia, C. (2001). Constructivist strategies: Meeting standards
and engaging adolescent minds. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Forman, E. A., Minick, N. E., & Stone, C. (1993). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics
in children's development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1984). Why students can't write arguments. English in Education,
18(2), 73-84.
Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning
on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195-200.
Glover, J. A., Bullock, R. G., & Dietzer, M. L. (1990). Advance organizers: Delay hypotheses.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 291.
Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse
Processes, 18(2), 187-210
Grabe, W. & Jiang, X. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and
issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 34-55.
Graff, G. (2004). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Grize, J. B. (1982). De la logique à l'argumentation. Geneva, Switzerland: Librairie Droz.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman.
Harland, D. (2003). Using asTTle persuasive writing: A case study of teaching argument writing
(asTTle Technical Report 29). Auckland, Australia: University of Auckland/Ministry of
Education.
Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American
Psychologist, 53(4), 449-455.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W.
Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum
Hayes, J.R., & Nash, J.G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C.M. Levy & S.
Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of writing (pp. 29-55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and
student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431-473.
Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing, grades 6-12: Supporting claims with relevant
evidence and clear reasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Hillocks, G. (2010). "EJ" in focus: Teaching argument for critical thinking and writing: An
introduction. English Journal, 99(6), 24-32
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured
problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development,
45(1), 65-94.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85
Jonassen, D. H. (2007). What makes scientific problems difficult? In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Learning to solve complex, scientific problems (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based
learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2(2), 4.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications
and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439-457.
Kellogg, R. T. (1993). Observations on the psychology of thinking and writing. Composition
Studies/Freshman English News, 21(1), 3-41.
Kim, A. H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on
the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105-118.
Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham-Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation:
Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London, England:
Springer.
Klaczynski, P. A. (2004). A dual-process model of adolescent development: Implications for
decision making, reasoning, and identity. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child
development and behavior, (Vol. 31, pp. 73-123). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Loertscher, D., Koechlin, C., & Zwaan, S. (2005). Ban Those Bird Units! 15 models for teaching
and learning in information-rich and technology-rich environments. Salt Lake City, UT:
Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
Mannes, S. M., & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition
and Instruction, 4(2), 91-115.
Marzano, R.J., Brandt, R.S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.F., Pressiesen, B.Z., Rankin, S.C., & Suhor,
C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information
Technology & People, 14(1), 46-59.
Meyen, E.L., Vergason, G.A., & Whelan, R.J. (1996). Strategies for teaching exceptional
children in inclusive settings. Denver, CO: Love Publishing
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2006). Estándares básicos de competencias en lenguas
extranjeras: Inglés. Formar en lenguas extranjeras: ¡El reto! lo que necesitamos saber y
saber hacer (Serie Guías N° 22). Bogotá, Colombia: Imprenta Nacional.
Morgan, W., & Beaumont, G. (2003). A dialogic approach to argumentation: Using a chat room
to develop early adolescent students' argumentative writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 47(2), 146-57
Myrick, J., & Siders, J. (2007). Comparison of the effectiveness of learning styles using graphic
organizers versus traditional text-based teaching on vocabulary development. The
University of Alabama McNair Journal, 7, 115-128.
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2007). Data reduction techniques for large
qualitative data sets. Handbook for team-based qualitative research, Lanham, MD:
AltaMira Press
Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning
argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly,
46(3), 273-304
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children,
adolescents, and adults a study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36 (2), 125-138.
Novak, J. (1991). Clarify with concept maps. Science Teacher, 58(7), 44-49.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in
students' writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92.
Patton, M. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation method (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press
Reid, D. K., & Stone, C. A. (1991). Why is cognitive instruction effective? Underlying learning
mechanisms. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 8-19.
Reyes, E. C. (2011). Connecting knowledge for text construction through the use of graphic
organizers. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 13(1), 7-19.
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to
outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455-
467.
Ruddell, M. R. (2001). Teaching content reading and writing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of
research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sakta, C. G. (1992). The graphic organizer: A blueprint for taking lecture notes. Journal of
Reading, 35(6), 482-484
Santangelo, T., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2009). Effective writing instruction for students who have
writing difficulties. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(4), 1-20
Schneuwly, B. (1988). Le langage écrit chez l'enfant. [Children's written language] Neuchâtel,
France: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Sinatra, R. C., & Pizzo, J. (1992). Mapping the road to reading comprehension.Teaching Pre K8(23), 102-105.
Sitko, N. J. (2013). Qualitative methods: Data analysis and validation. Paper presented at
Zambia Food Security Research Project in support of the Indaba Agricultural Policy
Research Institute, Lusaka, Zambia.
Stein, N., & Miller, C.A. (1993a). The development of memory and reasoning skill in
argumentative contexts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser
(Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, (Vol. 4, pp. 285-235). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1993b). A theory of argumentative understanding: Relationships
among position preference, judgments of goodness, memory and reasoning.
Argumentation, 7(2), 183-204.
Stein, N., & Miller, C.A. (1990). I win... you lose: the development of argumentative thinking. In
J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and Instruction (pp. 265-
290). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stewart, D. W. & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. California, CA:
Sage Publications.
Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they’re different: A new “tier of talent” for science.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 22(4), 11-30.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A
theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of
opinion. Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.
Argumentation, 1(3), 283-301
Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootensdorst, R., & Henkemans, F.S. (1996). Fundamentals of
argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary
developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Developments in argumentation theory. In R.
Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 43-
57). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootensdorst, R., & Henkemans, F.S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis,
evaluation, and presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Veerman, A. L., & Treasure-Jones, T. (1999). Software for problem solving through
collaborative argumentation. Foundations of argumentative text processing, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Victori, M. (1995). EFL writing knowledge and strategies: An interactive study (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autonoma, Barcelona, Spain.
Voss, J. F., & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M. H. Chi, R.
Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261-285). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Tool and symbol in child development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.
Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Mind in Society: The development of higher
psychological processes (pp. 1-294).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Washington, V. M. (1988). Report writing: A practical application of semantic mapping. The
Teacher Educator, 24(1), 24-30.
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes. A clarification
and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 22(1), 1-22.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2008). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Wilson, N., & McClean, S. I. (1994). Questionnaire design: a practical introduction. Newton
Abbey, UK: University of Ulster Press
Wong, Y. K. (1992). Instruction in argumentative writing in Hong Kong secondary schools: A
contrastive study of Chinese-English rhetoric (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Georgetown University, Washington, DC
259987
TE06960
Autor
Anderson, Carl Edlund
Institución
Resumen
En este estudio de investigación cualitativa en pequeña escala, se analizó la influencia del uso de organizadores gráficos para ayudar a los participantes en el proceso de realizar textos escritos basados en resolución de problemas. El estudio se llevó a cabo con estudiantes de grado sexto del nivel básico de Inglés según el Marco Común Europeo para las Lenguas en un colegio del sector privado ubicado en Chía, Colombia. Los participantes demostraron dificultades en varios aspectos lingüísticos y comunicativos (vocabulario, conectores, expresiones para dar un punto de vista, dar argumentos, y conectar ideas). Los datos fueron recolectados usando diversos instrumentos como encuestas, cuestionarios, grupos focales, diario docente, y los artefactos de los participantes (organizadores y los textos escritos) y fueron analizados usando el método de teoría fundamentada. Los resultados revelaron que los organizadores gráficos tuvieron una influencia positiva en las habilidades argumentativas de escritura de los participantes. Específicamente, los organizadores ayudaron a promover el desarrollo estratégico de la planeación de la información y linearización argumentativa durante las étapas de planeación y escritura. Esta influencia se debío al mejoramiento de las habilidades de procesamiento de la información y al fomento de la estructura argumentativa escrita. En conclusión, este estudio fomenta la investigación en la escritura en la lengua inglesa ya que extiende nuestro entendimiento sobre cómo los aprendices más jóvenes desarrollan habilidades argumentativas de escritura, y ofrece lecciones significativas para docentes de idiomas—y contenido—en la lengua materna o idiomas adicionales. Palabras claves: Organizadores gráficos; actividades sobre resolución de problemas; habilidad argumentativa escrita; planeación y linearización estratégica.