Testing of two systems for writing development in the school setting: Project vs workshop (notice n° 713993)
[ vue normale ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 02112cam a2200217 4500500 |
| 005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION | |
| control field | 20250122191708.0 |
| 041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE | |
| Language code of text/sound track or separate title | fre |
| 042 ## - AUTHENTICATION CODE | |
| Authentication code | dc |
| 100 10 - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Colognesi, Stéphane |
| Relator term | author |
| 245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Testing of two systems for writing development in the school setting: Project vs workshop |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. | |
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. | 2016.<br/> |
| 500 ## - GENERAL NOTE | |
| General note | 6 |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
| Summary, etc. | How can we help pupils acquire the capacity to write texts? How can we allow them to develop writing skills? This is a major objective for the teaching of language, which “should be the business of all teachers in a school, given the crucial role played [by competency in writing] in the learning process and in allowing one to thrive socially” (Lord, 2009, p. 3). Our article aims to demonstrate the effects of two systems that seek to promote the acquisition of writing skills in children in the third year of primary school (10 – 12 years old): the writing project ( le chantier d’écriture) (Jolibert, 1988) and the writing workshop ( l’atelier d’écriture) (Bing, 1983; Boniface, 1992; Lafont-Terranova, 2009; Niwese, 2010). In order to compare the two, we first describe what we understand by “competency in writing” in the context of the production of texts in primary school. Secondly, we define the two methods separately, and then bring them together to evaluate their similarities and their differences. Thirdly, we define our research questions and hypotheses, and our methodology, and present the tools used for gathering data. Fourthly, the results are analyzed in order to show the strengths and weaknesses of both methods. Finally, we conclude by returning to our research hypotheses and questions. We explain how we have answered them, and how they open up new questions. |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | writing workshop |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | writing construction project |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | scriptural competency |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | producing writings |
| 700 10 - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Lucchini, Silvia |
| Relator term | author |
| 786 0# - DATA SOURCE ENTRY | |
| Note | Enfance | o 2 | 2 | 2016-06-01 | p. 193-215 | 0013-7545 |
| 856 41 - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS | |
| Uniform Resource Identifier | <a href="https://shs.cairn.info/journal-enfance2-2016-2-page-193?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080">https://shs.cairn.info/journal-enfance2-2016-2-page-193?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080</a> |
Pas d'exemplaire disponible.
Réseaux sociaux