AKTYWNOŚCI STYMULUJĄCE REFLEKSJĘ W NAUCZANIU JĘZYKA PISANEGO W WIRTUALNEJ KLASIE

• Authors: Iwona Mokwa-Tarnowska

Title variants

EN

Activities stimulating reflection in teaching writing in a virtual learning environment

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The paper aims to show how to engage students attending an online language course in various activities which by stimulating reflection enhance the learning process and result in better learning outcomes. By blending cognitivist, constructivist, constructionist and behavioural ideas, course developers and tutors can produce materials and use methods which satisfy the varied needs of adults who want to improve their writing skills. Such a blend leads to a unique design, which can be achieved by tools available in a virtual learning environment. Course participants will be more adequately prepared for writing genuine texts in the future through use of such activities as working with authentic resources integrated with different tasks and assignments to stimulate reflection; studying under the supervision and guidance of the tutor; participating in collaborative projects to promote learner autonomy; developing new knowledge through meaning-making discussions; doing peer review as well as summative, formative assessment, and self-assessment. Experience of these ways of working will help the participants to eventually become self-regulated, lifelong learners.

Keywords

PL

VLE; refleksja; konstruktywizm; nauczanie języków obcych; język pisany

EN

VLE; reflection; constructivism; FLT; writing skill; VLE; reflection; constructivism; FLT; writing skill

• Publisher: Polskie Towarzystwo Neofilologiczne
• Journal: Neofilolog
• Year: 2014
• Issue: 42/2
• Pages: 201-214

Dates

published

2019-09-04

Contributors

author

Iwona Mokwa-Tarnowska

• Politechnika Gdańska

References

• Anglia Ruskin University. 2010. http://www.ultraversity.net/ DW 6.08.2013.
• Bartle, R. 2010. „Players” (w:) Online Communication and Collaboration (red. H. Donelan, K. Kear, M. Ramage). London: Routledge: 210-211.
• Bender, T. 2012. Discussion-based Online Teaching to Enhance Student Learning: Theory, Practice, and Assessment. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
• Boellstorff, T. 2010. „Everyday Second Life” (w:) Online Communication and Collaboration (red. H. Donelan, K. Kear, M. Ramage). New York: Routledge: 212-219.
• Brandes, G. M., Boskic, N. 2008. „Eportfolios: From description to analysis”. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, June. http://www. irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/502/1041 DW 21.11.2013.
• Brookfield, S. 1988. „Developing critically reflective practitioners: A rationale for training educators of adults” (w:) Training Educators of Adults: The Theory and Practice of Graduate Adult Education (red. S. Brookfield). New York: Routledge: 325-327.
• Can, T. 2009. „Learning and teaching languages online: A constructivist approach”. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(1): 60-74. http://www.ingilish.com/online-learning-constructivism. htm DW 20.11.2013.
• Castronova, E. 2010. „The changing meaning of play” (w:) Online Communication and Collaboration (red. H. Donelan, K. Kear, M. Ramage). New York: Routledge: 204-209.
• Donelan, H., Kear, K., Ramage, M. 2010. Online Communication and Collaboration. New York: Routledge.
• Heriot-Watt University. 1999. Lola: Learning about Open Learning: Training Manu-al. Glasgow: Heriot-Watt University.
• Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perceptions. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
• JISC. 2007. Effective Practice with e-assessment. Bristol: JISC.
• Jordan, A., Carlile, O., Stack, A. 2008. Approaches to Learning: A Guide for Teachers. Meidenhead: Open University Press.
• Lamy, M-N., Hampel, R. 2007. Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mokwa-Tarnowska, I. 2008. „Support mechanisms in teaching technical writing in the online environment” (w:) International Language Teaching Conference: Seeking most effective methods at different levels – organisation, methodology, tools (red. M. Chomicz, B. Trela). Warszawa: PWSBiA: 163-168.
• Osterman, K. 1990. „Reflective practice: A new agenda for education”. Education and Urban Society 22(2): 135-152.
• Osterman, K. F., Kottkamp, R. B. 1993. Reflective Practice for Educators: Improving Schooling through Professional Development. Newbury Park: Corwin Press, INC.
• Papert, P., Harel, I. 1991. Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation. http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html DW 6.08.2010.
• Piaget, J. 1969. Mechanisms of Perception. New York: Basic Books.
• Schön. D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, Inc.
• Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., Hartley, K. 2006. „Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning”. Research in Science Education 36 (1-2): 111-139.
• Surbeck, E., Han, E. P., Moyer, J. E. 1991. „Assessing reflective responses in journals” Educational Leadership 48(6): 21-27.
• Shuy, T, OVAE i TEAL staff. 2010. Self-regulated Learning. TEAL Center Fact Sheet no. 3.
• Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Weller, M. 2007. Virtual Learning Environments. New York: Routledge.
• Wenzel, R. 2001. The Education of a Language Teacher. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
• Willging, P. A., Johnson, S. D.. 2004. „Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses”. JALN 8(4): 105-118.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/n.2014.42.2.6