The Internet as a Pedagogical Tool in the Writing Process: A Research-Based Approach

  • Mercedes Díez-Prados
  • Ana Belén Cabrejas-Peñuelas
Chapter
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 10)

Abstract

This article examines how the Internet can be used to ease the process of writing by suggesting resources for the planning, writing and revising stages and how they can be used to carry out a writing task. One such resource is the Blackboard platform, which serves as a discussion tool and for teacher-to-student and student-to-student feedback. Based on sound L2 writing theories and ICTs, a pedagogical proposal for a writing task is proposed and explained that involves invention and organizing techniques; peer and teacher evaluation using the Blackboard platform; activities to practice argumentative skills, the five-paragraph essay and paragraph structure and evaluation sheets with criteria for correction on the Blackboard platform. This writing task can be of help to students and teachers alike: to students, in the task of writing an effective essay, and to teachers, in their role as lesson designers, information providers and classroom managers.

Keywords

L2 writing theories ICT Web 2.0 applications Planning Writing/transcribing Revising Blackboard platform Process approach Invention techniques Five-paragraph essay 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We must acknowledge the work done by Professor Dr. Carmen Flys from the University of Alcalá as the main designer of the course Inglés Académico, since some of the teaching proposals are inspired by her duties in her classes: the type of task (i.e., writing an essay), the list of essay topics, the use of the Blackboard platform, the evaluation criteria and the aims pursued in this subject are mainly due to her inspiration. We also want to thank the students who gave their permission to reproduce their work here. Last but not least, we are very grateful to Sandra Stroo, writing instructor at IELI at University of North Texas, for her insightful comments and for proofreading the paper. The present study has been developed under the National Project EMOción y Lenguaje en acción: La FUNción Discursiva Emotiva/evaluativa en distintos Textos y contextos dentro del mundo del Trabajo: Proyecto Persuasión (FFI2013-47792-C2-2-P), reference to which is hereby acknowledged.

References

  1. Ahmed, K., & Nasser, O. (2015). Incorporating iPad technology: Creating more effective language classrooms. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 751–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Aston, G. (2001). Learning with corpora. Houston: Athelstan.Google Scholar
  4. Attali, Y., Lewis, W., & Steier, M. (2012). Scoring with the computer: Alternative procedures for improving the reliability of holistic essay scoring. Language Testing, 30(1), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Axelrod, R. B., & Cooper, C. R. (1997). The St. Martin’s guide to writing (5th ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, B. (2015). Logically fallacious: The ultimate collection of over 300 logical fallacies. Sudbury: Archieboy Holdings, LLC.Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Burton, V. T., & Chadwick, S. A. (2000). Investigating the practices of student researchers: Patterns of use and criteria for use of Internet and library sources. Computers and Composition, 17(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, P. M. (2003). Effect of the Web on undergraduate citation behavior: Citing student scholarship in a networked age. Libraries and the Academy, 3(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text production: Toward a science of composition. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  11. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 30, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2005). Pedagogical uses of monolingual and parallel concordances. ELT Journal, 59(3), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, S. (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Language and Assessment, 8(6), 4–42.Google Scholar
  17. Guzdial, M., & Turns, J. (2000). Effective discussion through a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, L. D., & Wambeam, C. A. (1996). The internet-based composition classroom: A study in pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 13, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Hewett, B. L. (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition, 23, 4–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keith, W. M., & Lundberg, C. O. (2008). The essential guide to rhetoric. Boston/New York: Bedford/ST. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  24. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Kish, J. M. (2000). Breaking the block: Basic writers in the electronic classroom. Journal of Basic Writing, 19(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  26. Leki, I. (1998). Academic writing: Exploring processes and strategies (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Liao, H. (2015). Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing. ELT Journal, 70(3), 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milton, J. & Cheng, V. S. Y. (2010). A toolkit to assist L2 learners become independent writers. Proceedings of the NAACL HTL 2010 workshop on computational linguistics and writing (pp. 33–41). Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  30. Pennington, M. C. (1992). Beyond off-the-shelf computer remedies for student writers: Alternatives to canned feedback. System, 20(4), 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Proett, J., & Gill, K. (1986). The writing process in action: a handbook for teachers. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  32. Pullman, G. (2013). Persuasion. History, theory, practice. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Purdy, J. P. (2010). The changing space of research: Web 2.0 and the integration of research and writing environments. Computers and Composition, 27, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raimes, A. (1983). Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rigotti, E. (2005). Towards a typology of manipulative processes. In L. de Saussure & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century: Discourse, language, mind (pp. 61–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saadat, M., Mehrpour, S., & Khajavi, Y. (2016). Internet-mediated corrective feedback for digital natives. TESOL Journal, 7(1), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seely, J. (2005). Oxford guide to effective writing and speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Shewmake, J., & Lambert, J. (2000). The real(time) world: Synchronous communications in the online writing center. In J. A. Inman & D. N. Sewell (Eds.), Taking flight with OWLs: Examining electronic writing center work (pp. 161–170). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smalzer, W. R. (2005a). Write to be read: Reading, reflection, and writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Smalzer, W. R. (2005b). Write to be read: Reading, reflection, and writing. Teacher’s manual (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stapleton, P., & Radia, P. (2010). Tech-era L2 writing: Towards a new kind of process. ELT Journal, 64(2), 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warschauer, M. (2010). New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 3–8.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, J. R. (1988). Writing the academic essay. Ohio: Merrill Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Yuan, Y. (2003). The use of chat rooms in an ESL setting. Computers and Composition, 20, 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: Sub-processes, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10, 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mercedes Díez-Prados
    • 1
  • Ana Belén Cabrejas-Peñuelas
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AlcaláAlcalá de HenaresSpain
  2. 2.University of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations