Voir la source de Écrire pour apprendre

== Definition ==

* '''Écrire pour apprendre''' désigne une famille de modèle de design d'apprentissage ''(instructional design models)'' qui postule d'un effet bénéfique du [[scénario pédagogique]] qui comporte des activités d'écriture.

* '''Écrire pour apprendre''' est aussi connu en tant que ''écrire au cours du cursus d'étude'' (''writing across the curriculum movement (WAC)''), en particulier dans l'enseignement des sciences. Selon Keys, le ''WAC'' s'inspire du travail de Britton (1970).

==Description==

La recherche met en évidence que chacun apprend à la fois de et avec les technologies interactives. Écrire pour apprendre s'intéresse aux utilisations des TICE en tant que média numérique d'expression sociale. Dans cette approche ''[[outil cognitif]]'', les outils d'expression interactive sont fournis directement aux apprenants pour qu'ils y couchent ce qu'ils expérimentent et ce qu'ils savent, pour eux-même et pour les autres.

===premières approches===
L'idée d'''Écrire pour apprendre'' a bénéficié d'une longue tradition de recherche, qui s'est penché initiallement principalement sur les effets de l'écriture individuelle et les questions cognitives qui y sont liées. Le travail de recherche de Klein (1999) met en lumière quatre principales lignes de recherche et hypothèses associées :
# L'hypothèse "point of utterance" : les rédacteurs créent de la connaissance simultanéement à leur écriture (Galbraith, 1999). 
# L'hypothèse "forward" : le rédacteur externalise les idées dans le texte, puis le relit pour créer de nouvelles connections.
# L'hypothèse "genre": le rédacteur utilise des ''genre structures''(?) pour organiser les liaisons entre les éléments du texte, et ainsi entre des éléments de connaissance (Newell, 1984).
# L'hypothèse "backward": les rédacteurs mettent en place des objectifs rhétoriques, puis résolvent les problèmes de contenus pour atteindre ces objectifs (Flower & Hayes, 1994).

Ces quatres hypothèses s'appuient sur des aspects différents de l'écriture, et sont en principe compatibles avec la ''matrice'' de compétence de l'apprenant. Selon Klein (1999 : 252), il y a de nombreuses études qui appuient ces hypothèses, mais seule l'hypothèse ''"genre"'' a été testée de manière systématique et comparée aux mesures d'apprentissage des rédacteurs, et a montré avoir en général des effets positifs.

===Développement récents===
Les recherches récentes menées principalement dans la communauté ''travail collaboratif par ordinateur'' ([[CSCL]], computer-supported collaborative work), se sont concentré sur les mécanismes d'[[apprentissage collaboratif]], ses impacts sur l'apprentissage individuel et le développement d'outils qui augmentent les possibilités d'apprentissage collaboratif et social. Les élèves peuvent rester ensemble, par exemple classe à informatique intégrée. (Tewissen, 2001).

Les activités d'écriture sont essentielles à beucoup de paradigmes du ''travail collaboratif par ordinateur''. Tandis que le courant principal des recherches sur le "écrire pour apprendre" s'intéresse surtout sur la production de textes de taille importante, ou autonomes (self-contained entries), écrire dqns la perspective ''travail collaboratif par ordinateur'' touche plutôt la production de textes courts et de types variés (questions, arguments, definitions, etc...) Les productions et intéractions des apprenants sont supposées permettre le déclenchement de processus meta-cognitifs variés bénéfiques à l'apprentissage ; par exemple changements de concepts et meilleure compréhension ([[Comprendre en profondeur]]).

"Restructurer l'environments d'apprentissage" (Flower & Hayes, 1994; Erkins et al. 2003) sont basés sur l'hypothèse que la transformation ou le travail sur la connaissance amène à l'élaboration de connaissance (Galbraith, 1999). 

La structuration et la construction des connaissance peut être favorisée par les [[communautés d'apprentissage]]. Écrire contribue alors à un corps de connaissances, dont les éléments peuvent être modifiés, améliorés et mis en relation. Un bon exemple en est les dit ''environnements à but d'apprentissage par ordinateur'' ''(computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILE)) (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994) dont l'objectif est de recadrer le discours de la classe pour promouvoir la construction de connaissance par des moyens qui peuvent se prolonger à des connaissances non scolaires, ''(advancing enterprises ?)'' et rendre l'éducation scolaire plus en situation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Dans un des scénarios, les données acquises sur l'espace de travail (connaissance en action), servent de base aux activités de réflexion menées en classe.

''Traduction à poursuivre''

Many compatible instructional models, like [[inquiry-based learning]], [[problem-based learning]] or [[project-based learning]] can integrate research results from successful experimental of clinical studies.

(3) Co-construction enhanced by collective knowledge management is also related to organizational learning. Community memories are to [[Community of practice|communities of practice]] (Wenger, 1998) what human memories are to individuals. They make use of explicit, external, symbolic representations that allow for shared understanding within a community. They make organizational learning possible within the group (Stahl, 2000). Conversely, such communities need a social infrastructure around the technical infrastructure (Hakkarainen 2003; Bielaczyc, 2001). Interest in [[Knowledge-building community model | knowledge-building communities]] is both shared by education and the business literature (Snyder, 2003; Bereiter, 2002; Paavola, 2002). In other words, individual learning in school and workplace, life-long learning, and organizational learning are related issues in this perspective (Scardamalia, 2001).

== The genres debate ==

'''Writing-to-learn''' refers to different instructional design models. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) introduced the difference between writing as "knowledge telling" and writing as "knowledge transformation". For Bereiter and Scardamalia, the rhetorical goal of a text incites exploration that leads to discovery of new knowledge/ideas. They distinguish between two processes are used used, depending on the capacities and knowledge of the author:

*'''Knowledge-telling:''' ideas that respond to the rhetorical goal are retrieved from long-term memory and transferred directly into written text. This process of writing is used by those knowledgeable in the topic being considered.
*'''Knowledge-transforming:''' ideas retrieved from memory are transformed by the effort to resolve a conflict between the ideas and the rhetorical goal resulting in the generation of new ideas, content and a deeper understanding of the subject. This is the process of writers that lack expertise in the topic of the text being produced.

Scrutinizing and reworking Bereiter & Scardamalia's model, Galbraith introduces writing as a '''knowledge-constituting''' process (Galbraith, 1998), where content is derived from a "dispositional dialectic" (Galbraith 1996 in Galbraith, 1998): the translation process that takes place during a cycle of “spontaneous articulation of thought… during text production” that responds to the stimulus of the emerging text – Galbraith (1998). The subject and the task at hand invoke a network of ideas referred to as "units". If an idea is satisfactory, other ideas are suppressed. If an idea does not meet the needs of the task at hand, other ideas are examined. During the repetition of this cycle there is an emergence of new or contradictory ideas that lead the writere to a broader and deeper understanding of the subject. Galbraith points out that rhetorical planning is only a “reorganization of existing ideas”… “retrieved from episodic memory” (p.140). The resolution of rhetorical problems leads to neither a deeper understanding, nor the development of new ideas.

The process and the number of times the cycle will be repeated is dependent on the author's knowledge of the subject, as this will determine the quantity of ideas generated, the complexity of the semantic network invoked and the author's capacity to express the ideas linguistically.

The product will also be affected by the "translation" strategies used by the author, i.e. the form in which ideas will be represented. The type of planning used for the writing process, (outline vs. free flow), the format of the output (notes, prose, graphic) and the rhetorical goal will all play a determining role in which ideas will be selected and developed (Galbraith, p.147-148). 

Galbraith in 1996 (Galbraith, 1998) looked at the writing process of different personality types. Based on Snyder's scale of personality types (in Galbraith, 1998), he devided subjects into ''High self-monitors'' (those who regulate their behaviour based on stimulus from their environment) and ''Low self-monitors'' (those whose behaviour is regulated by their inner state). He found that ''High self-monitors'' tended to generate most of their ideas during note-taking prior to writing, while ''Low self-monitors'' generated most of their ideas while writing. 


Catel (2001) distinguishes several dimensions of research according to genre:
# '''Expository''' writing refers to process that engages a learner in reusing existing knowledge, e.g. to test his knowledge in an examination.
# '''Scientific''' writing: learners are engaged into different kinds of academic writing, like lab notes, field notes, presentation (including report and explanation) in poster or paper form.
# '''Interpretative''' (expressive) writing in different genres focusses on exploration of personal thinking, like conceptual cards, stories, slogans
# '''Social''' (collaborative, cooperative and collective) writing social pratice, usually computer-mediated and often referring to practices of the scientific community.

Many authors seem to agree that diversification of genres is important. E.g. Prain & Hand (1998: 158) argue that " ...results indicate that diversification of writing types enhances opportunities for students to develop higher order thinking skills, including metacogntive understandings.".

For some authors it is important that learners write in their own language (Prain & Hand). Others authors claim that all writings should refer to scientific practice (e.g. Keys).  These two views may conflict, but may also be sequenced in a learning experience.

== Examples ==

* This Wiki will be used in some of courses for student writing activities, e.g. they have to improve articles, add new ones, add cases studies, and so forth [more details will follow]

* Keys (1999) discuss a "[[science writing heuristic]]" tool for learning from laboratory activities in secondary science and which can be used by teachers as a framework from which to design classroom activities. "There is evidence that use of the science writing heuristic facilitated students to generate meaning from data, make connections among procedures, data, evidence, and claims, and engage in metacognition. Students' vague understandings of the nature of science at the beginning of the study were modified to more complex, rich, and specific understandings." (Keys 1999:1065).

== Technology ==

* Different sorts of [[cognitive tool]]s
* [[wiki|Wikis]]
* [[C3MS]] Portals
* [[Knowledge Forum]]
* [[Concept map]]s
* [[Writing tool]]s

== Links ==

* [http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol16/ The WAC Journal] (Academic open-access journal)

* [http://www.nwrel.org/request/2004dec/index.html By Request December 2004: Writing To Learn, Learning To Write: Revisiting Writing Across the Curriculum in Northwest Secondary Schools]. By Request is a booklet series produced at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, two times per year.

== References ==

* Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

* Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in a knowledge society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

* Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Designing social infrastructure: The challenge of building computer-supported learning communities. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. The proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 106-114). 

* Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. New York: Penguin.

* Catel, Laurence (2001), Ecrire pour apprendre ? Ecrire pour comprendre ? Etat de la question. in Fillon, Pierre et Vérin, Anne (eds.) Ecrire pour comprendre les sciences, Aster, recheres en didactique des sciences expérimentales 33. 

* Connally, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connally & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1-15). New York: Teachers College Press.

* Donahue, Christiane, Writing and Teaching the Disciplines in France - Current Conversations and Connections, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, 59-79 (2004), DOI: 10.1177/1474022204039645 [http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/3/1/59 PDF]

* Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Computer Support for Collaborative and Argumentative Writing. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (eds). Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157- 176). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.

* Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication 1: 120-160.

* Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance and D. Galbraith (eds.), Knowing What to Write: Conceptual Processes in Text Production Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. (pp. 139-160).

* Hand Brian, Prain Vaughan, Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study, Science Education 86 (6), 737 - 755. DOI 10.1002/sce.10016 [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/99016727/ABSTRACT]

* Hand Brian, Carolyn W. Wallace, Eun-Mi Yang (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects, nternational Journal of Science Education, 26 (2) 131 - 149. [http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/0950069032000070252]

* Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English . London: Longman.

* Hawisher, G. E., &  Pemberton, M. A. (1997, March).  “Writing across the curriculum encounters asynchronous learning networks or WAC Meets Up With ALN.”  Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 1(1). [http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v1n1/pdf/v1n1_hawisher.pdf PDF]

* Holliday, W., Yore, L, & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning - writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-893.
*Klein, P.D. (1999). "Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-Learn", Educational Psychology Review, 11 (3), 203-270.

* Keys Carolyn W., Brian Hand, Vaughn Prain, Susan Collins, (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science, Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 36 (10) 1065-1084. [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/68500996/ABSTRACT]

* Keys Carolyn W. (1997). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science, Science Education, 83 (2), 115 - 130. [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/40003857/ABSTRACT]

* Lovejoy, K.B., & Lance, D.M. (1991). Information management and cohesion in the study of written discourse. Linguistics and Education, 3, 251-273.

* Newell, G. E. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English 18: 265-287.

* Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer- supported collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

* Prain, Vaughan and Hand, Brian (1996), Writing for Learning in Secondary Science: Rethinking Practices, Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 (6), 609-626. ISSN 0742-051X

* Prain, Vaughan and Hand, Brian (1998) Students Perceptions of Writing for Learning in Secondary School Science, Science Education, Volume 83, Issue 2 (p 151-162). [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/40003859/ABSTRACT]

* Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge Forum (Advances beyond CSILE). Journal of Distance Education, 17 (Suppl. 3, Learning Technology Innovation in Canada), 23-28.

* Scardamalia, M. (2004a). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In Education and technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

* Scardamalia, M. (2004b). Knowledge technologies in education: Beyond learning environments. In Education and technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 393-400). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

* Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

* Snyder, W. and E. Wenger (2003), Our world as a learning system. A community of practice approach. in Clawson, J. and Conner, M. (eds.) Creating a Learning Culture: Strategy, Practice, and Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press

* Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

* Wenger, E., R. McDermott and W. Snyder (2002). Cultivating communities of practice, A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.

[[Category: Instructional design models]]
[[Category: Educational technologies]]