| Summary: | Writing is a critical element for many of the second language learners that I’ve encountered in my work as a Swedish teacher. Therefore, on the basis of Jerome Bruners theories of reflec-tion and learning, was the purpose with this study to examine the scaffolded structured reflec-tion conversation as a method for writing development. Bruner says that the knowledge be-comes deeper when we consciously reflect over it (Arfwedson 1992:110 f). I have used a qualitative method where I let five students write a text in Swedish on the subject "application for internship". After that I held a conversation with each of the pupils. By asking them questions I wanted them to reflect on their writing process, and the language and content in their written texts. After this I let the students revise the texts, with the invita-tion to use the thoughts from the conversation. By this I wanted to examine to which extent the five reflection conversations led to reflec-tion on the students' own writing, as well as on language and content in the texts. I also wanted to examine how the students changed their texts after the conversations and which factors can be interpreted as being significant for the outcome of the conversations. The study has shown that the outcome of the scaffolded structured reflection conversa-tions is very much dependent on the students' respective inputs and focus of the talks. The results indicate that a person who enters the conversation with a focus on developing his/her writing in general is generally more inclined to reflect than a student who enters with a strong focus on the individual task. These results also finds support in earlier theories of reflection. In accordance with previous research, this study also demonstrated that it is essential that the reflection is based on the individuals’ circumstances and experiences. I had before the conversations constructed a manual with questions, which I used in all conversations. The results show that only those students who during the conversation were within what Vygotskij calls the zone of proximal development, through my questions got the scaffolding that they needed to reflect.
|
|---|
