/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) written production (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: written production
Is in goldstandard
1
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt142 - : b) learners demonstrating a higher level of awareness performed significantly better than those with a lower level of awareness on both the recognition and written production of the targeted forms, (Leow 1977:560, in Gabrys 2002 ).
2
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt76 - : This article reports the effects of using the genre-process approach and e-portfolio dossier to improve short story writing among senior year students from a state school in Bogotá. This study originated from a need to generate student interest in the development of writing skills and to find instructional strategies that guide learners through each stage of the process. The results of data analysis from this study reveals significant improvements in students' written production and the emergence of new roles among the learners: they evolved from a passive to an active status which enabled them to become planners, builders and reviewers of their own short story writing process . These new roles helped students reflect on their learning and become better decision makers and critical thinkers. Results from this study also validate the use of e-portfolio dossiers as an effective learning and assessment tool.
3
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : The aim of this paper is to determine whether the acquisition of written production in the mother tongue (L1) is affected by CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), as a consequence of the fact that less school time is devoted to academic exposure to the L1 in this type of bilingual programs consisting of delivering some content subjects, such as Science, Maths or Art in a second language instead of in the mother tongue. For this purpose, a large-scale study was conducted in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Written productions in L1 of CLIL and non-CLIL secondary school students aged 13-14. (n=4,675) were compared, having into account six written production areas: (1 ) planning strategies, (2) use of text typologies, (3) expressive richness, (4) use of written vocabulary, (5) use of grammatical structures, and (6) spelling and punctuation. Results showed that, although CLIL students had more limited exposure to L1 compared to their non-CLIL counterparts, they significantly outperformed
4
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : As for written production in L1 in primary school, a differential achievement was detected between CLIL/non-CLIL learners in some areas: CLIL students significantly outperformed their peer in expressive richness and spelling, whereas the non-CLIL group was ahead in planning strategies, and in the use of text typologies (Nieto, 2020 ). In this context, this study intends precisely to get insight into written production development in L1 in secondary school, and therefore aims to provide a clearer picture on the evolution of development of literacy in L1 in CLIL throughout primary and secondary education.
5
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : 2. 2. Are there any differences in acquisition of the four dimensions of written production considered: planning, use of text typologies, fluency, and accuracy, depending on whether CLIL/non-CLIL is implemented ?
6
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : As shown in [54]Graph 2, CLIL students scored significantly higher than their non-CLIL counterparts in all the dimensions of written production assessed: planning strategies (CLIL=5 .4; non-CLIL=4), text typology (CLIL=6.1; non-CLIL=5), fluency (CLIL=6.77; non-CLIL=5.3) and accuracy (CLIL=6.175; non-CLIL=4.5).
7
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : Both groups showed lowest results in planning (CLIL=5.4; non-CLIL=4), while their highest ones were recorded in fluency (CLIL=6.77; non-CLIL=5.3). The greatest differences between the groups were detected in accuracy (CLIL=6.175; non-CLIL=4.5), which means that CLIL students were remarkably more advanced when writing texts in their mother tongue with the correct spelling and grammar. The CLIL group obtained scores above 5 points out of 10 in all the dimensions of written production, whereas the non-CLIL recorded below 5 points out of 10 in two of them: planning their written productions and writing accurate texts in terms of correct use of grammar and spelling . The non-CLIL group "passed" in following the conventions of the given text typology, but only with just 5 points out of 10.
8
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : The main aspects to be foregrounded in the discussion section will be: (1) CLIL had a positive effect on developing written production in L1, (2) the areas which most benefited from CLIL were: spelling, planning and expressive richness, and (3 ) CLIL had a more positive impact on the most demanding areas of writing.
9
paper corpusRLAtxt229 - : Furthermore, CLIL had a positive effect on all subskills in written production, but especially in the most demanding areas of writing: spelling, planning and expressive richness . Thus, the trend in CLIL which showed students performed higher in the most difficult or challenging tasks (^[77]Pérez-Cañado and Lancaster, 2017; ^[78]Prieto-Arranz et al., 2015) has also been recorded in this study.
10
paper corpusSignostxt552 - : El FC se define como “the feedback that learners receive on the linguistic errors they make in their oral or written production in a second language (L2)” (^[35]Sheen & Ellis, 2011: 593 ). ^[36]Lyster y Ranta (1997) distinguen seis categorías de FC, clasificadas a su vez en FC explícito y FC implícito.
Evaluando al candidato written production:
1) clil: 13 (*)
3) planning: 8 (*)
5) non-clil: 6 (*)
7) spelling: 5 (*)
9) learners: 5 (*)
11) strategies: 4
12) significantly: 4
13) expressive: 4 (*)
17) positive: 3 (*)
18) secondary: 3
20) richness: 3 (*)
written production
Lengua: eng
Frec: 125
Docs: 70
Nombre propio: / 125 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 8
Puntaje: 8.863 = (8 + (1+5.88264304936184) / (1+6.97727992349992)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| written production |
: 11. Torras, M. R., & Celaya, M. L. (2001). Age-related Differences in the Development of Written Production. An Empirical Study of EFL School Learners. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 103–126. : Celaya, M.L. (2006) Lexical Transfer and Second Language profifiency: A Longitudinal Analysis of Written Production in English as a Foreign Language. AEDEAN 29. Proceedings. : Ghavamnia, M, Tavakoli, M. & Esteki, M. (2013). The effect of pre-task and online planning conditions on complexity, accuracy, and fluency on EFL learners' written production. Porta Linguarum, 20, 31-43. : Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619. : Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2006). Linguistic analysis of secondary school students' oral and written production in CLIL context: Studying social science in English. VIEWS, 15, 28- 32 : Talaván, N., Ibáñez, A., y Bárcena, E. (2017). Exploring collaborative reverse subtitling for the enhancement of written production activities in English as a second language. ReCALL, 29(1), 39-58. [293]https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344016000197 |