Herkes Önemlidir: Pratik bir CEFR Tabanlı Yazma Öğretim Çerçevesi ile Düşük Yeterlilikteki EFL Öğrencilerinin Yazma Performanslarını Destekleme

Abstract

Bu aksiyon odaklı pedagojik araştırma, özellikle Cezayir İngilizce müfredatının yüksek beklentileri ile gerçek İngilizce seviyeleri arasındaki uyumsuzluk nedeniyle zayıf yazma performansı gösteren düşük yeterlilikteki EFL ortaokul öğrencilerini desteklemeyi amaçladı. Bu amaçla, CEFR olanaklarını birleştirme, iskeleli yazma öğretim materyallerini uyarlama ve Hyland’ın tür temelli öğretim stratejilerini pedagojik aksiyon araştırma sürecine entegre ederek bu düşük yeterlilikteki öğrencileri EFL ulusal standartlarıyla uyumlu hale getirmeyi seçtik. Mevcut çalışma, İngilizce yeterlilik seviyeleri sınıf arkadaşlarına kıyasla çok düşük olan 50 birinci sınıf EFL ortaokul öğrencisini içeren öğretmen liderliğinde bir aksiyon araştırma projesinden oluşuyor. Araştırma hedeflerini ele almak için, her araştırma döngüsünde planlama, uygulama, gözlem ve yansıtma aşamalarını içeren üç yinelemeli yapılandırılmış bir plan kullanıldı. İlk yineleme ile ilgili olarak, hedef EFL grubundaki çeşitli İngilizce yeterlilik seviyelerini belirlemek için bir CEFR yerleştirme testi yaparak başladık, ardından CEFR yazma ölçeklerini ve CEFR Yapabilirim ifadeleri inceleyerek öğrencilerin CEFR seviyesine özgü yetkinlikleriyle uyumlu farklılaştırılmış ve iskeleli yazma görevleri uyarladık. Sonraki yinelemeler, daha iyi sonuçlar elde etmek için farklı ayarlamalar içerir. Araştırma bulguları, yukarıda belirtilen modellerin birleştirilmesinin yanı sıra Wheeler’ın müfredat tasarımı modeli ve Feez’in öğretim-öğrenme döngüsünün, öğrencilerin yazma performansını yükselterek düşük performans gösteren öğrencileri daha yüksek EFL öğrenme bağlamlarına yeniden entegre eden CEFR bilgili bir yazma öğretim çerçevesi sağladığını ortaya koydu.

Keywords

• CEFR
• İskele Kurma
• Yazma Performansı
• Farklılaştırma

Everyone Matters: Scaffolding EFL Low Proficiency Students’ Writing Performances with a Practical CEFR-based Writing Instruction Framework

Abstract

This action-oriented pedagogical research aimed at supporting low proficiency EFL secondary school students in Algeria, who are experiencing poor writing performances, particularly due to the misalignment of the high expectations of the Algerian English curriculum and their actual English level. For that, we opted for merging CEFR affordances, tailoring scaffolded writing instruction materials and integrating Hyland’s genre-based instruction strategies into the pedagogical action research process to align these low proficiency students with EFL national standards. The present work consists of a teacher-led action-research project involving 50 first year EFL secondary students whose English proficiency level is too low compared to their classmates’. To address the research objectives, a structured plan was employed involving three iterations comprising stages of planning, acting, observing and reflecting within each cycle of the research. As far as the initial iteration is concerned, we started by conducting a CEFR placement test to identify the various English proficiency levels existing in the target EFL group, followed by examining the CEFR writing scales and the CEFR Can-Do statements so as to tailor differentiated and scaffolded writing tasks aligned with students CEFR level-specific competencies. The iterations that follow, involve different adjustments seeking to obtain better results. Research findings revealed that merging the aforementioned models in addition to Wheeler’s model for curriculum design and Feez’s teaching learning cycle contributes to upgrading students’ writing performance granting a CEFR-informed writing instruction framework to reintegrate low performing students within higher EFL learning contexts.

Keywords

• CEFR
• Scaffolding
• Writing Performance
• Differentiation

References

1. AEF (Algerian English Framework of Reference), 2009, “Algerian English framework for grades”, 6-12. Algeria TESOL
2. Ågerfalk, P. (2010). Getting pragmatic. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 251-256. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.22.
3. Ali Jalalian Daghigh & Hajar Abdul Rahim (2020): Neoliberalism in ELT textbooks: an analysis of locally developed and imported textbooks used in Malaysia, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2020.1755888
4. Anderson, C. (1992). Free/style: a direct approach to writing. Boston: Houghton.
5. Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. Routledge.
6. Badger, R and White, G. (2000). A process of genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal. 54 (2) 153-160 Bensalem, D., & Idri, N. (2022). Investigating writing self-efficacy perceptions of learners of english as a
7. foreign language: The Case of first year pupils at Fatma Nsoumer secondary school, Amizour, Algeria.
8. Bhuttah, T. M., Xiaoduan, C., Ullah, H., & Javed, S. (2019). Analysis of curriculum development stages from the perspective of Tyler, Taba and Wheeler. European Journal of Social Sciences, 58(1), 14-22.

9. Bliss, J. & Askew, M. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of education, 22 (1), 37-61.
10. Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of proximal development. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1-18.
11. BOUKHENTACHE, S. (2020). Elucidating the Place of the Standards Movement in the Algerian English Language Syllabuses.
12. Bourouba, N. (2012). Teaching Writing Right: Scaffolding Writing for EFL/ESL Students Case Study: Algerian EFL Secondary School Students Challenges and Opportunities.
13. Brindley, G. (2001). Investigating rater consistency in competency-based language assessment. In G. B., & C. Burrows (Vol. Eds.), Studies in immigrant English language
14. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
15. Byram, M. (2004). Genre and genre-based teaching.The Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.
16. Carlsen, H, C., Rocca, L., Machetti, S. (2023). ALTE report on Uneven language profiles & differentiated language requirements - recommendations for test developers, policy makers and employers.
17. Cheung, M. and Chan, A. (1994). Teaching Writing as a Process.
18. Cimasko, T., & Reichelt, M. (Eds.). (2011). Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices. Parlor Press LLC.
19. Cornelius, S., & Cotsworth, B. (2015). Genre analysis and genre-based approaches to EFL writing: A critical analysis. 関西大学外国語教育フォーラム, 14, 15-21.
20. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment
21. Cumming, A. 1989. ‘Writing expertise and second language proficiency’. Language Learning 39: 81–141
22. De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–59.
23. Dirgeyasa, I. W. (2016). Genre-based approach: What and how to teach and to learn writing. English Language Teaching, 9(9), 45-51.
24. Dudley-Evans, T. 1997. ‘Genre models for the teaching of academic writing to second language.
25. Elicker, J. (1995). A knitting tale: Reflections on scaffolding. Childhood Education, 72, 29-32.
26. Erdal, H. (2014). A Comparison of Functional-National Approach and Grammar-Syntax-Organization
27. Approach in Teaching Writting in English as a Foreign Language (Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University (Turkey)).
28. Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: McQuarie University/AMES.
29. Fernsten, L. A., & Reda, M. (2011). Helping students meet the challenges of academic writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 171-182.
30. Firkins, A., Forey, G., & Sengupta, S. (2007). Teaching writing to low proficiency EFL students. ELT journal, 61(4), 341-352.
31. Goullier, F. (2007). Council of Europe tools for language teaching. Paris: Les Editions Didier/Conseil http://www. coe. int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Goullier_Outils_EN. pdf.(03.02. 2015) de l’Europe.
32. Graham S (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing. A Meta-analysis. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing research. The Guilford Press.
33. Hamzaoui, C. (2021). Scrutinizing Algerian EFL students’ challenges in research teaching and writing. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 11(4), 478-488.
34. Harris, J. (2012). A teaching subject: Composition since 1966. University Press of Colorado.
35. Harsch, C., & Rupp, A, A. (2011) Designing and Scaling Level-Specific Writing Tasks in Alignment With the CEFR: A Test-Centered Approach, Language Assessment Quarterly, 8:1, 1-33, DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2010.535575
36. Harsch, C., & Seyferth, S. (2020). Marrying achievement with proficiency–Developing and validating a local CEFR-based writing checklist. Assessing Writing, 43, 100433.
37. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
38. Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(04).
39. Kay, H and Dudley- Evans, T. (1998). Genre: what teachers think. ELT Journal. 52 (4) 308-314.
40. Konrad, E., Holzknecht, F., Schwarz, V., & Spöttl, C. (2018). Assessing writing at lower levels: Research findings, task development locally and internationally, and the opportunities presented by the extended CEFR descriptors.
41. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
42. Lavelle E, Bushrow K (2007). Writing approaches of graduate learners. Edu. Psy. 27: 807-822. DOI: 10.1080/01443410701366001.
43. Lee, I. (2011). Issues and challenges in teaching and learning EFL writing: The case of Hong Kong. Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices, 118-137.
44. Likaj, M. (2015). Teaching Writing through Communicative Approach in Military English. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(20), 102-107.
45. Mertler, C. A. (2017). Overview of the Action Research Process. In Action Research: Improving Schools and Empowering Educators (pp. 34–50). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483396484.n2
46. Mertler, C. A., & Charles, C. M. (2011). Introduction to educational research, 7thEdn.
47. Nagamanuma, Naoyuki, Nagai, Noriko & O’Dwyer, Fergus (2017) Applying the CEFR to English for Academic Purposes textbooks In O’Dwyer, Fergus, Hunke, Morten, Imig, Alexander, Nagai, Noriko, Naganuma, Naoyuki &
48. Schmidt, Maria Gabriela (Eds) Critical, Constructive Assessment of CEFR-informed Language Teaching in Japan and Beyond (The English Profile Studies series, volume 6), pp. 77-94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Nunan, David. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers. Prentice Hall.
50. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh: A response to C.
51. Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.
52. Peyton, J.K. & Staton, J. (Eds.). (1996). "Writing our lives: Reflections on dialogue journal writing with adults learning English." Washington, DC and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. (Available from Delta Systems at 1-800-323-8270.)
53. Pianko, S. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5-22.
54. Prajapati, M. (2022). Introductory guide to the common European framework of reference (CEFR) for English language teachers. Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities, 2(6), 291-296.
55. Prior P (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds), Handbook of Writing Research. New York, NY: Guilford. pp.54-68.
56. Rafiee, M., & Abbasian-Naghneh, S. (2020). Willingness to write (WTW): Development of a model in EFL writing classrooms. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1847710.
57. Raimes, A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching Writing, U.S.A:Oxford University Press.
58. Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language learning, 37(3), 439-468.
59. Scott, B. J., Vitale, M. R., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: A literature review. Remedial and special education, 19(2), 106-119.
60. Selvaraj, M., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). Systematic Review: Approaches in Teaching Writing Skill inESL Classrooms. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development,8(4),450–473.
61. Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
62. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63. Steele, V. (2004). Product and process writing. http://www.englishonline.org.cn/en/teachers/ workshops/teaching-writing/teachingtips/ product-process [25th June. 2019]
64. Trim, J. (2011). Using the CEFR: Principles of good practice. University of Cambridge ESOL examinations. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
65. Tsiriotakis, I. K., Grünke, M., Spantidakis, I., Vassilaki, E., & Stavrou, N. A. (2020, October). The impact of an explicit writing intervention on EFL students’ short story writing. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, p. 565213). Frontiers Media SA.
66. Vygotsky, L. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67. Walter-Echols, E. (1990). Teaching writing by modeling genres through the teaching-learning cycle. In Cam TESOL Conference on English Language Teaching: Selected Papers Volume 5, 2009 (p. 230).
68. White, R. V.(1988). Process and Product.In P. Robinson (Ed) Academic Writing. ELT Document, 129:4-16 Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.
69. Zhang, Yuliang, and Surasak Jamnongsarn. "Developing Physical Ability Curriculum Based on Exceeding Compensation to Enhance College Students’ Sport Abilities." Journal of Multidisciplinary in Humanities and Social Sciences 7.6 (2024): 3691-3711.