The Complexity of Assignment Design: Functional Dimensions and Semiotic Domains in Assignments Designed by Teachers in the NORM-project
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2023.14.03.02Keywords:
Semiotic domains, Writing research, Assignment design, Literacy, School writingAbstract
Designing writing assignments for pupils is a complex task. The teacher must make a lot of choices regarding what type of text to write, what the purpose of the writing should be, which audience the texts should have etc. Although formulating assignments is important for writing instruction, there has been limited insight into teachers’ choices regarding these aspects or the significance of the different school subjects when making such choices. We explore findings from a Norwegian intervention study on writing in primary school. The data includes 687 writing assignments designed by teachers for pupils in grades 3–7. Gee’s concept of semiotic domains forms the theoretical scope. Our research question is: What opportunities and challenges arise in teachers’ assignment design regarding different functional dimensions and semiotic domains? We show examples of how semiotic domains can collide, and that the combination of acts of writing, purpose, and audience can lead to assignments that are almost impossible to answer in a good way. We visualize the complexity of assignment design in a model which also is transferable to other contexts of assignment design.
References
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2011). A Snapshot of Writing Instruction in Middle Schools and High Schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.
Bakke, J. O. (2019). Skriveforløpets dramaturgi: Å iscenesette et skriveoppdrag. En kvalitativ studie av skriveundervisning i norsk, samfunnsfag og naturfag på 7. trinn, gjennomført i Normprosjektet. [The dramaturgy of the Writing process: To stage a Writing Assignment. A qualitative study of how writing is taught in the NORM-project] [PhD]. University of Sørøst-Norge.
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language (2nd. ed). Blackwell Publishing.
Berge, K. L. (1996). Norsksensorenes tekstnormer og doxa. En kultursemiotisk og sosiotekstologisk analyse [The Norwegian sensors' text norms and doxa. A cultural semiotic and socio-textual analysis.] [PhD]. NTNU.
Berge, K. L. & Stray, J. H. (eds.) (2012). Demokratisk medborgerskap i skolen [Democratic citizenship in school]. Fagbokforlaget.
Berge, K. L. & Skar, G. (2015). Ble elevene bedre skrivere? Intervensjonseffekter på elevers skriveferdigheter og skriveutvikling [Did students become better writers? Effects on students' writing skills and writing development]. Rapport 2 fra Normprosjektet. Høgskolen i Sør-Trøndelag.
Berge, K. L., Evensen, L. S., & Thygesen, R. (2016). The Wheel of Writing: A model of the writing domain for the teaching and assessing of writing as a key competency. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1129980
Berge, K. L., Skar, G., Matre, S., Solheim, R., Evensen, L. S., Otnes, H. & Thygesen, R. (2017). Introducing teachers to new semiotic tools for writing instruction and writing assessment: consequences for students’ writing proficiency. Assessment in education: Principles, Policy & Practice 26(1), 6–25.
Brossell, G. (1983). Rhetorical Specification in Essay Examination Topics. College English, 45(2), 165–173.
Dagsland, S. (2018). Om å jakte på heffalomper: Et metalingvistisk perspektiv på antatt reflekterende og antatt utforskende skriving i norsk og matematikk. [On the hunting of heffalumps: A meta-linguistic perspective on presumed reflective and presumed explorative writing in Norwegian (L1) and Mathemathics] [PhD]. NTNU.
Dagsland, S. (2019). Aspekt som analytisk tilnærming til utforskende elevtekster [Aspect as analytical approach to explorative texts]. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 5(2).
Duke, N. K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2006). Authentic Literacy Activities for Developing Comprehension and Writing. International Reading Association, 60(4), 344–355.
Endacott, J. & Brooks, S. (2013). An Updated Theoretical and Practical Model for Promoting Historical Empathy. Social Studies Research and Practice 8, 1.
Evensen, L. S. (2010). En gyldig vurdering av elevers skrivekompetanse? [A valid assessment of pupils’ writing competence?] In J. Smidt, I. Folkvord & A. J. Aasen (eds.), Rammer for skriving [Frames for writing] (p. 13–33). Tapir Akademisk Forlag.
Flower, L. (2008). Community Literacy and the Rhetoric of Public Engagement. Southern Illinois University Press.
Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1989). Contexts for developing argument. In R. Andrews (Ed.), Narrative and argument (p. 73–84). Open University Press.
Gardner, T. (2008). Designing Writing Assignments. National Council of Teachers of English.
Gee, J. P. (2002). Learning in semiotic domains: A social situated account. In D. Schalert, C. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch & J. Hoffman (eds.), The 51st Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (23–32). National Reading Conference.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (1. paperback ed). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning in semiotic domains: a social and situated account. In M. Prinsloo, M. Baynham (eds.), Literacies. Global and local (p. 137–149). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies. Ideology in discourses. Routledge.
T. P. Gorman, A. C. Purves, & R. E. Degenhart (eds.) (1988). The IEA Study of Written Composition I: The International Writing Tasks and Scoring Scales, Vol. 1, (15–40). Pergamon.
Guariento, W. & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 55(4), 347–352.
Hatlen, J. F. (2020). Historikerens kode. Veien til historisk forståelse [The historian's code. The road to historical understanding]. Universitetsforlaget.
Håland, A. (2013). Bruk av modelltekstar i sakprega skriving på mellomtrinnet. Ei undersøking av korleis modelltekstar set spor i elevtekstar og korleis elevar posisjonerer seg i ulike sakprega skrivesituasjonar [Use of model texts in factual writing in primary school. An investigation of how model texts leave traces in student texts and how pupils position themselves in different case-based writing situations] [PhD]. University of Stavanger.
Håland, A. (2016). Skrivedidaktikk. Korleis støtte elevane si skriving i ulike fag? [Writing pedagogy. How to support students' writing in different subjects?]. Universitetsforlaget.
Iversen, S. M. (2014). Skriving og skriveudvikling i de gymnasiale matematikfag. [Writing and writing development in upper secondary mathematics] [PhD]. University of Southern Denmark.
Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220–245.
Jørgensen, C. S. (2015). Siden det er du som spør, er vel Jesus svaret! Om skriveoppgaver med relevans for RLE-faget i Normprosjektet. [Since you are the one asking, Jesus is probably the answer! About writing assignments relevant to the religion subject in the NORM-project.] In H. Otnes (ed.), Å invitere elever til skriving. Ulike perspektiver på skriveoppgaver [Inviting students to write. Different perspectives on writing assignments] (p.181–200). Fagbokforlaget.
Karlsson, A.-M. (1997). Textnormer i och utanför skolan: att skriva insändare på riktigt och på låtsas [Text norms inside and outside school: To write reader posts for real and by pretending]. Svenskans beskrivning, 22, 172–186.
Keech, C. (1982). Practices in Designing Writing Test Prompts: Analysis and Recommendations. In J. Gray & L. Ruth (eds.), Properties of Writing Tasks: A Study of Alternative Procedures for Holistic Writing Assessment (p. 32–131). University of California.
Kohnen, A. M. (2013). The Authenticity Spectrum: The Case of a Science Journalism Writing Project. The English Journal, 102(5), 28–34.
Krogh, E., & Hobel, P. (2012). «Årets bedste opgave»: en analyse af en elevtekst i dens kontekst [Best assignment of the year: an analysis of a student text in its context]. In S. Matre, D. K. Sjøhelle & R. Solheim (Eds.), Teorier om tekst i møte med skolens lese- og skrivepraksiser. Universitetsforlaget.
Kvistad, A. H. & Otnes, H. (2019). Mottakerinstansen i skoleskriving. En studie av skriveoppgaver fra Normprosjektet. [Audience in school writing. A study of writing assignments from the NORM-project.] Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 5(2), 100–119. https://doi.org/10.23865/njlr.v5.1644
Lykknes, A. (2015). Skriveoppgaver i naturfag fra Normprosjektet. [Writing assignments in science from the NORM-project.] In H. Otnes (ed.), Å invitere elever til skriving. Ulike perspektiver på skriveoppgaver [Inviting students to write. Different perspectives on writing assignments] (p.159–180). Fagbokforlaget.
Matre, S., Solheim, R., & Otnes, H. (eds.) (2021). Nye grep om skriveopplæring. Forskingsfunn og praksiserfaringar [New approaches to writing instruction. Research findings and practice experiences]. Universitetsforlaget.
NAEP (2017). Writing Framework for the 2017. National Assessment of Educational Progress. National assessment Governing Board, U.S. Department of Education.
Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. Falmer Press.
Ongstad, S. (1997). Sjanger, posisjonering og oppgaveideologier: et teoretisk-empirisk bidrag til et tverrfaglig, semiotisk og didaktisk sjangerbegrep [Genre, positioning and ideologies: a theoretical-empirical contribution to an interdisciplinary, semiotic and didactic genre concept] [PhD]. NTNU.
Otnes, H. (2015a). Skriveoppgaver under lupen [Writing assignments under the microscope]. In H. Otnes (ed.), Å invitere elever til skriving. Ulike perspektiver på skriveoppgaver [Inviting students to write. Different perspectives on writing assignments.] (p. 11–27). Fagbokforlaget.
Otnes, H. (2015b). Tildelte skriverroller og posisjoner i skriveoppgaver på mellomtrinnet [Given writing roles and positions in writing assignments in the intermediate stage]. In H. Otnes (ed.), Å invitere elever til skriving. Ulike perspektiver på skriveoppgaver [Inviting students to write. Different perspectives on writing assignments] (p. 243–259). Fagbokforlaget.
Prior, P. (2006). A Sociocultural Theory of Writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (p. 54–66). The Guilford Press.
Pinner, R. (2014). The authenticity continuum: Towards a definition incorporating international voices: Why authenticity should be represented as a continuum in the EFL classroom. English today, 30(4), 22–27.
Ruth, L. & Murphy, R. (1988). Designing writing tasks for the assessment of writing. Alex Publishing Company.
Smidt, J. (2002). Double histories in multivocal classrooms: Notes Towards an Ecological Account of Writing. Written Communication, 19, 414–443.
Smidt, J. (2009). Developing Discourse Roles and Positionings – An Ecological Theory of Writing Development. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley & M. Nystrand (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development. Sage.
Smith, M. A. & Swain, S. (2011). Wise eyes. Prompting for Meaningful Student Writing. University of California.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Vähäpassi, A. (1988). The Domain of School Writing and Development of the Writing Tasks. In T. P. Gorman, A. C. Purves & R. E. Degenhart (eds.), The IEA Study of Written Composition I: The International Writing Tasks and Scoring Scales, Vol. 1, (15–40). Pergamon.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Anne Holten Kvistad, Hildegunn Otnes, Sindre Dagsland
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
