The article looks into the texts that students write in Estonian high schools: what types of texts are written and why, what is emphasized in the writing tasks and what are the students’ stances on writing in and outside school. The article is based on a survey that was conducted among Estonian high school students.
The analysis of the students’ responses shows that writing in Estonian high schools is mostly oriented towards the preparation for the state exam is Estonian, with the exam format (essay) dictating what and how is written during the studies. In general, the teaching of writing seems to be mostly focused on the superficial aspects of texts. For nearly half of the texts the students said they were writing in school, they could not give a purpose why they were writing them. The guidelines that students are given for written assignments also primarily concern formal requirements.
Consequently, students find the writing tasks at school boring and uninspiring, and are discouraged by overly strict requirements and time pressure. On the other hand, the responses reveal that students appreciate being able to express their thoughts and acquire new knowledge through writing, and many of them also write outside school. Thus, high school students are willing and able to engage in meaningful writing if the writing assignments meet their interests and give them an opportunity to develop their skills. It is proposed that a wider implementation of process writing in high schools could help making writing tasks more useful and rewarding for students.
Artiklis antakse ülevaade gümnaasiumiõpilaste kirjutamisteemalise küsitluse tulemustest: milliseid tekste õpilased kirjutavad ning millised on hoiakud kirjutamise suhtes. Küsitlusele vastas üle 500 õpilase ja uurimistulemustest selgub, et gümnaasiumis kõige enam kirjutatav tekst on kirjand, mille kirjutamise eesmärki ei oska paljud õpilased nimetada. Kirjutamise juures peavad õpilased ise kõige ebameeldivamaks igavaid teemasid ja liiga rangeid reegleid. Samas näitavad tulemused, et õpilased kirjutavad ka väljaspool kooli ning on tegevusi, mis neile kirjutamisel meeldivad – seda kõike saab koolis kirjutamisõpetuses ära kasutada, et parandada kirjutamisoskust ning suurendada selle oskuse rolli õppimisel.
Aruvee, Merilin 2023. Tekstikeskne aine- ja keeleõpetus: teoreetiline raamistik ja praktilised soovitused. (= Tallinna Ülikooli humanitaarteaduste dissertatsioonid 75.) Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikool.
Bangert-Drowns, Robert L., Marlene M. Hurley, Barbara Wilkinson 2004. The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. – Review of Educational Research 74 (1), 29–58.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
Bazerman, Charles 2009. Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. – Pratiques, 127–138.
https://doi.org/10.4000/pratiques.1419
Bereiter, Carl, Marlene Scardamalia 1987. The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203812310
Das, Sabyasachi, Koel Mitra, Mohanchandra Mandal 2016. Sample size calculation: Basic principles. – Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 60 (9), 652–656.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.190621
Flower, Linda, John Richard Hayes 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. – College Composition and Communication 32 (4), 365–387.
https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Graham, Steve, Dolores Perin 2007. Writing next. Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. – A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington: Alliance for Excellent Education.
GRÕK = Gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava. Riigi Teataja I, 08.03.2023.
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/108032023006?leiaKehtiv#para4
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Third Edition. London: Hodder Arnold.
Hint, Helen, Anni Jürine 2021. Protsessikeskse kirjutamise kasulikkusest gümnaasiumiõpilaste kirjaliku tekstiloome oskuse kui suhtluspädevuse ühe komponendi arendamisel. – Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri 9 (1), 243–273.
https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2021.9.1.10
Keh, Claudia L. 1990. Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. – ELT Journal 44 (4), 294–304.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294
Komissarov, Liisa-Maria, Helena Lemendik, Eleriin Miilman, Nele Novek, Betti Marie Peterson, Reena Roos, Marri-Mariska Tammepõld, Nele Karolin Teiva, Ilona Tragel 2024. Akadeemilise teksti kirjutamise juhend: TNR, 12, 1.5 ja valmis? – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat 20. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 20. Toim. Margit Langemets, Maria-Maren Linkgreim, Helle Metslang, David Ogren. Tallinn: Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühing, 63–82.
https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa20.04
Lepajõe, Kersti 2011. Kirjand kui tekstiliik. Riigieksamikirjandite tekstuaalsed, retoorilised ja diskursiivsed omadused. (= Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 31.) Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Lotman, Yuri M. 1990. Universe of the mind. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Lundstrom, Kristi, Wendy Baker 2009. To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewerʼs own writing. – Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 30–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Murray, Donald 1972. Teach writing as a process not product. – The Leaflet 71 (3), 11–14.
Nunan, David 1999. Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Nystrand, Martin 1989. A social-interactive model of writing. – Written Communication 6 (1), 66–85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006001005
PGS = Põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseadus. Riigi Teataja I, 16.06.2020.
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/116062020012
Puidet, Berit 2022. Toimetamismudeli rakendamine protsessikeskse kirjandiõpetuse kontekstis 10. klassi näitel. Magistritöö. Tallinna Ülikool.
Raja, Hille 2010. Põhikooli II kooliastme õpilaste kirjalik väljendusoskus. Magistritöö. Tartu Ülikool.
Sedita, Joan 2013. Learning to write and writing to learn. – Fundamentals of Literacy Instruction & Assessment 6–12. Ed. by Martha C. Hougen. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 97–114.
Soodla, Piret 2004. Kirjaliku tekstiloome oskuste arendamine põhikooli keskastmes. Magistritöö. Tartu Ülikool.
Zamel, Vivian 1982. Writing: The process of discovering meaning. – TESOL Quarterly 16 (2), 195–209.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586792
Wäschle, Kristin, Anja Gebhardt, Eva-Maria Oberbusch, Matthias Nückles 2015. Journal writing in science: Effects on comprehension, interest, and critical reflection. – Journal of Writing Research 7, 41–64.
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.03
