Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-w5jd6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T18:51:26.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing German writing skills by way of Timbuktu1

A pilot study comparing computer-based and conventional teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Uschi Felix  and
Michael Lawson
Uschi Felix
Affiliation:
Language Centre, Monash University, Australia
Michael Lawson
Affiliation:
School of Education, Flinders University, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports on a pilot project which examined the effects on essay writing skills in advanced German of computer-based teaching which allowed a co-operative approach to writing and the pmvision of immediate teacher and peer feedback through the interactive display and networking of student work.

Third year German students were assigned to computer-based or conventional teaching groups taught by two different teachers using common materials and the same task-based approach. Prior to implementation of the project and again at the end, students were given a standard writing task to allow the level of their writing skills to be evaluated structurally and linguistically. The major focus was on the development of arguments, together with appropriate intmductions and conclusions. Grammar and expression were also measured to check whether the absence of an explicit focus on grammar had a detrimental effect on accuracy.

The students in these two groups along with all other third year German students completed a questionnaire that elicited information about their abilities and interest in German and their attitude to the use of computers. Teacher evaluation and qualitative data were obtained from participating students at the end of the project. Results indicated that the experimental students achieved significantly higher ratings for the logical linking of ideas in the body of their essays and were positive about the technology.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , May 1996 , pp. 12 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Cohe, A. D. and Cavalcanti, M. C. ‘Feedback on compositions: teacher and student verbal reports’, in Kroll., B. (ed.). Second language writing. Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp 155–177.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. ‘Past predictions, current perspectives and future prospects in CALL’, paper delivered at the Annual Congress of Modem Language Teachers' Association of Tasmania, Devonport, 1989.Google Scholar
Fathman, A. K. and Whalley, E. ‘Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content’, in Kroll, B. (ed.), Second language writing. Research insights for the classroom, Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrow, K., Power, D. and Freebody, P. ‘Computer assisted writing development for deaf “writing safari”, paper delivered at the XVIIIth Annual Congress of the Applied Linguistic Association of Australia, University of Ade-laide, 1993.Google Scholar
Felix, U. and Lawson, M. J. ‘Evaluation of a bridging course on academic writing for overseas postgraduate students. Journal of Higher Education Research and Development (in press).Google Scholar
Flower, L. and Hayes, J. R. ‘A cognitive process theory of writing’, College Composition and Communication, Vol 32. 1981, pp 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, M. ‘Elektronisch schreiben’, Fremdsprache Deutsch Vol 1, 1989, pp 40–43.Google Scholar
Freedman, S. W.Response to student writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1987.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. Jr ‘The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and. revision in teaching the composing process’. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol 16, 1982, pp 261–278.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. W. ‘Writing as Learning: Reflections on developing students' writing strategies’. Higher Education Research and Development, Vol 10, No l,1991,pp 41–52.Google Scholar
Leki, I. ‘Coaching from the margins: issues in writ-ten response’, in Kroll, B. (ed.), Second language writing. Research insights for the classroom, Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp 57–68.Google Scholar
Li, K. ‘Computer and writing for college basic writers: New model and new instruments’, Paper delivered at the International Language in Education Conference, University of Hong Kong, 1993.Google Scholar
Nightingale, P. [Understanding processes and problems in student writing’, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 13, No 3,1988, pp 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapper, J. and Ike, K. ‘Using word processing to teach writing to NESB University students’, Paper delivered at the XVIIIth Annual Congress of the Applied Linguistic Association of Australia, University of Adelaide, 1993.Google Scholar