2004
Volume 56, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1876-9071
  • E-ISSN: 2214-5729

Abstract

Abstract

According to a recent manifesto titled , the secondary school subject Dutch Language and Literature is incoherent, unchallenging and unscientific. In order to solve this problem, the school subject should strive to reach levels of conscious language proficiency (‘bewuste taalvaardigheid’), for example by drawing on insights from the related academic discipline. By doing so, the school subject and the discipline of Dutch Language and Literature (‘neerlandistiek’) could engage in a perspective of cooperation. There have been several proposals for ways of achieving both a more conscious level of language proficiency as well as the subsequent state of cooperation. One such proposal argues that scientific insights fostered from classical rhetoric could well be used to achieve conscious writing proficiency (Jansen 2016). However, empirical evidence to support this claim is lacking. Therefore, in this exploratory study, we investigated Jansen’s assertion by looking at the effect lessons based on classical rhetoric have on secondary school pupil’s use of tropes, such as irony or antithesis. We judged the quality of their tropes and additionally, we looked at whether or not pupils could use them consciously. Results support Jansen’s claim and reveal that classical rhetoric can indeed be used to achieve greater conscious proficiency in writing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/IN2018.1.GERA
2018-02-01
2021-09-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/18769071/56/1/01_IN2018.1.GERA.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/IN2018.1.GERA&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aalsvoort, M. van der, Vensters op vakontwikkeling. De betwiste invoering van taalkunde in het examenprogramma Nederlands havo/vwo (1988-2008). Academisch proefschrift. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aalsvoort, M. van der & S.Kroon, ‘The contested introduction of linguistics in the Dutch exam. A historical curriculum study on the relationship between school subjects and academic disciplines’. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature15, 2015, pp. 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alderson, J. & R.Hudson, ‘The metalinguistic knowledge of undergraduate students of English language or linguistics’. Language Awareness22(4), 2013, pp. 320–337.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andeweg, B. & J.de Jong, De eerste minuten. Attentum, benevolum en docilem parare in de inleiding van toespraken. Academisch proefschrift. Den Haag: SDU, 2004.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrews, R., ‘Teaching Sentence-Level Grammar for Writing. The Evidence So Far’. In: T.Locke (Ed.) Beyond the Grammar Wars. A resource for teachers and students on developing language knowledge in the English/literacy classroom. New York and London: Routledge, 2010, pp. 91–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Becheikh, N., S.Ziam, O.Idrissi, et al., ‘How to improve knowledge transfer strategies and practices in education? Answers from a systematic literature review.’ Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 2010, pp. 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beeker, A., J.Canton & B.Trimbos, Scaffolding, Technieken om MVT-leerlingen hoger te laten reiken. Enschede: SLO, 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bereiter, C. & M.Scardamalia, The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrens Erlbaum Associates, 1987.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonset, H., ‘Wat is er mis met het Manifest Nederlands op School?’. Levende Talen Magazine, 103(3), 2016, pp. 36–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonset, H.Enkele zorgwekkende beweringen aangaande het schoolvak Nederlands. Geraadpleegd vanhttp://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2017/07/enkele-zorgwekkende-beweringen-aangaande-het-schoolvak-nederlands/ op 5 augustus 2017, 2017a.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Braaksma, M., Observational learning in argumentative writing. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Academisch proefschrift, 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Braaksma, M. G.Rijlaarsdam & H.van den Bergh, ‘Hypertekst schrijven en observerend leren als didactiek: effecten op schrijfvaardigheid en kennisverwerving’. Vonk40(3), 2011, pp. 3–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Braet, A., ‘Schoolvak Nederlands dreigt een schrale cursus te worden’. In: NRC Handelsblad, 30 augustus 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Braet, A., Retorische kritiek. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chaiklin, S., ‘The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction’. In A.Kozulin, et al. (Eds.) Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 39–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cordewener, K., F.Hasselman, L.Verhoevenet al., ‘The Role of Instruction for Spelling Performance and Spelling Consciousness’. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2017, pp. 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ebbens, S. & S.Ettekoven, Effectief leren. Derde druk. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Eemeren, F. van, R.Grootendorst & F.Snoeck-Hermans, Handboek argumentatietheorie. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fontich, X., ‘L1 Grammar Instruction and Writing: Metalinguistic Activity as a Teaching and Research Focus’. Language and Linguistics Compass10(5), 2016, pp. 238–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Frank, H. et al, Nieuw Nederlands 5/6 vwo. Groningen: Noordhoff, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gelderen, A. van, ‘Does Explicit Teaching of Grammar Help Students to Become Better Writers? Insights from Empirical Research’. In: T.Locke (Ed.) Beyond the Grammar Wars. A resource for teachers and students on developing language knowledge in the English/literacy classroom. New York and London: Routledge, 2010, pp. 109–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gerbrandy, P., Quintilianus. De opleiding tot redenaar. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij, 2001.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Glopper, K. de, J.van Kruiningen & C.Jansen, ‘Academische geletterdheid van studenten in het hoger onderwijs’. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 37(2), 2015, pp. 117–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Graham, S. & D.Perin, ‘A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent Students’. Journal of Educational Psychology99(3), 2007, pp. 445–476.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Graham, S. & G.Rijlaarsdam, ‘Writing education around the globe: introduction and call for a new global analysis’. Reading & Writing, 29(5), 2016, pp. 781–792.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hayes, J. & L.Flower, ‘Identifying the organization of the writing process’. In: L.Gregg & E.Steinberg (Eds.). Cognitive process in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980, pp. 3–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Herelixka, C. & S.Verhulst, ‘Nederlands in het hoger onderwijs: een verkennende literatuurstudie naar taalvaardigheid en taalbeleid’. Rapport in opdracht van de Nederlandse Taalunie, 1maart2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Huys, M., Retorica, Aristoteles. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij, 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jansen, C., ‘Taal- en communicatieonderwijs in beweging’. Internationale Neerlandistiek54(2), 2016, pp. 137–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Knoblauch, C. & L.Brannon, Rhetrocial Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. N.J: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1984.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MacArthur, C., S.Graham & J.Fitzgerald, Handbook of Writing Research. Second edition. New York: The Guilford Press, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mantingh, E., Th.Witte, P.A.Coppenet al., ‘Manifeste misverstanden’. Levende Talen Magazine103(4), 2016, pp. 38–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mulder, J., ‘Establishing Linguistics in Secondary Education in Victoria, Australia’. Language and Linguistics Compass1(3), 2007, pp. 133–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Myhill, D., ‘The effectiveness of explicit language teaching: Evidence from the research’. In: Giovanelli, M. & D.Clayton, (Eds.). Linguistics and the secondary English classroom. New York: Routledge, 2016, pp. 36–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Myhill, D., S.Jones, H.Lineset al., ‘Re-thinking grammar: the impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding’. Research Papers in Education14(3), 2012, pp. 151–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nederlandse Taalunie
    Nederlandse Taalunie, Vaart met taalvaardigheid: Nederlands in het hoger onderwijs. Adviesrapport, 2015. Geraadpleegd vanhttps://tinyurl.com/mo3ejpk, op 23 april 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nederlandse Taalunie
    Nederlandse Taalunie, Iedereen taalcompetent! Visie op de rol, de positie en de inhoud van het onderwijs Nederlands in de 21ste eeuw. 2017. Geraadpleegd vanhttp://taalunieversum.org/sites/tuv/files/downloads/Iedereen_taalcompetent.pdf, op 5 augustus 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Neijt, A., P.A.Coppen & K.de Glopper, ‘Bewuste taalvaardigheid als eindterm voor het schoolvak Nederlands in havo en vwo: visie en voorbeelden’. In A.Mottart & S.Vanhooren (Red.) Negenentwintigste Conferentie Onderwijs Nederlands. Gent: Academia Press, 2015, pp. 198–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Neijt, A., Th.Witte, P.A.Coppenet al., Manifest Nederlands op school. Meer inhoud, meer plezier, beter resultaat. 2015. Geraadpleegd vanhttps://tinyurl.com/lv4elkg, op 23 april 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Onrust, M. & W.Spooren, Van taalbeheersing naar taal & communicatie. In T.Janssen & T. vanStrien (Eds.). Neerlandistiek in beeld. Amsterdam, Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek, 2013, pp. 273–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Paffen, R. & A.Bosman, ‘Spellingbewustzijn kan met een korte training gestimuleerd worden’. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek44, 2005, pp. 388–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Peters, V. & F.Wester, Kwalitatieve analyse. Bussum: Coutinho, 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Plomp, T. & N.Nieveen (Eds.), An Introduction to Educational Design Research. Enschede: SLO, 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Renkema, J., Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Renkema, J., Schrijfwijzer. Amsterdam: Boom, 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Rijlaarsdam, G., Effecten van leerlingenrespons op aspecten van stelvaardigheid. Academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: SCO, 1986.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rijt, J. van, ‘Meer grip op taalkundige structuren. De meerwaarde van valentie als taalkundig concept binnen het grammaticaonderwijs’. Levende Talen Magazine103(7), 2016, pp. 7–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rijt, J. van & A.Wijnands, ‘Taalnorm, taalwerkelijkheid en taalgevoel: de casus ‘hun hebben’’. Levende Talen Magazine104(7), 2017, pp. 4–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rooijackers, P., ‘‘Stel hoge eisen als je wilt dat ze je serieus nemen.’ Een vraaggesprek met Antoine Braet.’ Levende Talen Magazine (4), 2008, pp. 12–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sanders-Reio, J., P.Alexander, Th.Reioet al., ‘Do students’ beliefs about writing relate to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance?’. Learning and Instruction33, 2014, pp. 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Soetaert, R. & K.Rutten, ‘Retoriek & verhalen’. In: S.Vanhooren & A.Mottart (Red.) Zesentwintigste conferentie van Het Schoolvak Nederlands. Gent: Academia Press, 2012, pp. 4–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. White, M.J. & R.Bruning, ‘Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality’. Contemporary Educational Psychology30(2), 2005, pp. 166–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilson, A. & D.Myhill, ‘Ways with words: teacher’s personal epistemologies of the role of metalanguage in the teaching of poetry writing’. Language and Education26(6), 2012, pp. 553–568.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wijnands, A. & P.A.Coppen (in voorbereiding). ‘L1 grammar teaching: The Use of Reference Grammars in Secondary Education’.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Witte, Th. ‘Enkele zorgwekkende ontwikkelingen aangaande het schoolvak Nederlands’. Online notitie geraadpleegd viahttp://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2017/06/enkele-zorgwekkende-ontwikkelingen-aangaande-het-schoolvak-nederlands/ op 5 augustus 2017, 2017a.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Witte, Th. ‘Kanttekeningen bij de reactie van Helge Bonset op mijn notitie over ontwikkelingen in het schoolvak Nederlands’. Geraadpleegd vanhttp://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2017/07/kanttekeningen-bij-de-reactie-van-helge-bonset-op-mijn-notitie-over-ontwikkelingen-in-het-schoolvak-nederlands/ op 5 augustus 2017, 2017b.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Woude, N. van der, N.Janssen & T.Sanders, ‘Hear, Hear! Leer scholieren debatteren’. Levende Taal Magazine99(5), 2012, pp. 10–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Yarrow, F., & K.Topping, ‘Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 2001, pp. 261–282.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/IN2018.1.GERA
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/IN2018.1.GERA
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error