{"id":7812,"date":"2026-04-03T08:19:56","date_gmt":"2026-04-03T08:19:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/portfolio\/jeroen-steenbakkers\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T09:14:52","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T09:14:52","slug":"jeroen-steenbakkers","status":"publish","type":"us_portfolio","link":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/portfolio\/jeroen-steenbakkers\/","title":{"rendered":"Jeroen Steenbakkers"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":14322,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"us_portfolio_category":[45],"class_list":["post-7812","us_portfolio","type-us_portfolio","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","us_portfolio_category-new-template"],"acf":{"naam_van_het_proefschift":"Speelse toewijding","samenvatting":"Er is geen Nederlandse samenvatting beschikbaar. De Engelse samenvatting vind je <a href=\"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/portfolio\/jeroen-steenbakkers\/\">hier<\/a>.","summary":"Chapter 1 - Introduction\nConcerns about the level of the written expressions of students are of all times. Empirical research confirms these concerns: they show that students in secondary education have problems with (correct) formulations. The general feeling - at least since the 1980\u2019s - is that average student\u2019s writing lacks qualities when it comes to written expression and that L1-education should therefore focus on this problem. The educational innovation of the 1990\u2019s (Basisvorming, Tweede Fase) and later (Referentiekader Taal) target on (more) quality on written expression in non-fictional genres. These innovations also center on measurable outcomes of education. This fits in with the rise of the \u2018measurement culture in education\u2019 (Biesta, 2012) which has a profound impact on L1-education. Questions about \u2018good education\u2019 are always \u2018composite questions\u2019, because education performs three different functions at the same time: qualification, socialisation and subjectification (Biesta, 2012). In the latest curriculum revisions, however, the subjectification function fell outside the center of attention.\n\nThis study about new lessons for writing style is conducted within this educational and social-cultural context. We asked ourselves the following questions: Would it be possible to link formulation and writing style education to language proficiency and language awareness? Would it be possible to develop an intervention that does not focus exclusively on the qualification and socialisation functions, but also on the subjectification function? Would it be possible to teach students to deal with writing and written expression in an attentive and playful way and thereby encourage their language awareness?\n\nThe main question of this dissertation is as follows: How can L1-teachers foster language awareness and formulation skills with their lessons writing style and written expression for 3rd and 4th-year students from higher and academic secondary education? To specify this question, we formulated six sub-questions: (1) What do we know about regular lessons writing style and written expression? (2) What do we know about education of language awareness and written expression in other countries - and what do we know about the lesson conditions that are needed for that? (3) Which didactic design principles and pedagogical direction indicators (that inspire teachers) can we deduce from sub-question (2)? (4) How can we use the didactic design principles and pedagogical direction indicators to create an innovative module for writing style and written expression? (5) Which pedagogical and didactic actions encourage or hinder the development of language awareness and formulation skills of 3rd and 4th-year students from higher and academic secondary education? (6) What are the effects of the newly developed module on the stylistic awareness, the appreciation of the lessons and the writing style of 3rd and 4th-year students from higher and academic secondary education?\n\nIn this dissertation these sub-questions are successively answered in the chapters 2, 3, 6 and 7. The chapters 4 and 5 deepen the discussion of two related issues: How do pedagogy, didactics and L1-education relate to each other (chapter 4)? How can we create meaningful and effective lessons that deal with correct formulation (chapter 5)?\n\nChapter 2 - Writing errors in student text and in teaching methods Dutch: a study into their alignment in writing education\nWriting style and written expression can be taught in a prescriptive (normative) and in a descriptive way. The prescriptive approach is dominant in the 3rd and 4th year classes from higher and academic secondary education. In Dutch L1-classrooms, there is little education about how to make writing style choices in non-fictional genres (descriptive). Dutch writing courses offer mainly modules of \u2018correct formulation\u2019, which deal with \u2018standard errors\u2019 like faulty congruity and contractions (prescriptive). In this study we present three questions about these modules correct formulation: (1) What formulation errors do school books and teachers present in the 3rd and 4th year classes from higher and academic secondary education? (2) To what extent do these writing courses correspond to problems students have when formulating? (3) To what extent do the formulation criteria of schoolbooks match which the norms and analyses presented in scientific and advisory literature?\n\nFor this study we initiated a response group of eight teachers. They gave insight in their schoolbooks, school curriculum and tests. To answer the first question, we investigated these materials. In the modules correct formulation the students learn to correct eight to sixteen standard errors in singles sentences. To answer the second and third question, a corpus of students\u2019 texts was assembled (3rd and 4th-year students from higher and academic secondary education). 200 texts were analysed, using a model that contains two criteria: one based on schoolbooks, the other one based on scientific and advisory literature. We analysed the texts on five so-called standard errors: faulty congruity, incorrect contractions, erroneous non-finite clauses, pleonasms and tautologies. Two conclusions could be drawn. (1) There is a discrepancy between errors addressed by school courses and errors made by students. Students hardly engage in writing down tautologies (N=1), erroneous non-finite clauses (N=1) and pleonasms (N=2). The students experience some problems with incorrect contractions (N=18) and they frequently experience congruity problems (N=35) \u2013 all according to the criteria of the scientific and advisory literature. (2) Different criteria lead to major differences in error identification: the criteria of schoolbooks lead to 40% more error identification than the criteria that are based on scientific and advisory literature.\n\nThe overall conclusion of this study is that the teaching of correct formulation should be adjusted: schoolbook theory should be based on scientific and advisory literature, thus putting a stop to marking and discussing redundant \u2018errors\u2019 and theory and exercises should be aligned more carefully to the errors that students actually make.\n\nChapter 3 \u2013 The pedagogical dimension of lessons writing style and written expression in the Dutch language arts in secondary education\nThis study focuses on the question to which extent writing style and written expression, two aspects of the Dutch language arts curriculum, pay attention to pedagogical themes, values and norms. To answer this question, we investigated curriculum documents, pedagogical handbooks, teaching materials and the teaching practices of 8 L1-teachers in relation to pedagogical core concepts: good education should be about qualification, socialisation and subjectification, it needs teachers who are allowed to educate their students and education that incorporates risk. Good education is a composite of three domains (qualification, socialisation and subjectification), they should not be addressed separately (Biesta, 2012).\n\nThe results of this study show that all indicators point in the same direction: the common lessons for writing style and formulation are not related to the pedagogical values and norms listed above. We list the main causes for this conclusion: The Dutch national curriculum (kerndoelen, Referentiekader Taal) mainly sets objectively verifiable goals, targeting qualification and socialization goals. The subjectification domain is not included. The pedagogical handbooks deal with almost no pedagogical themes, as it comes to writing style education. The school curricula follow the national curriculum: they focus on qualification. For instance: the lessons focus on correcting grammatical errors; they do not focus on developing a personal writing style at all. Students do not learn to relate to their own formulations and the formulations they read in their daily lives.\n\nThe pedagogical dimension is virtually absent in the lessons writing style and written expression. This education is an example of \u2018learnification\u2019, in the words of Biesta (2012). This is a problem, because if we do not align the teaching practices with pedagogical insights, values and goals, this can lead to undesirable pedagogical practices and to impoverishment of teachers\u2019 profession. This study concludes with the recommendation that the revision of the curriculum of Dutch language arts should be enriched with pedagogical insights, values and goals.\n\nChapter 4 \u2013 Didactics, pedagogy and L1 education\nThis study presents a brief history of pedagogical thinking about L1-education. From the 1930\u2019s to the early 1980\u2019s, the didactic handbooks reflected consequently on pedagogical theories and values. This changed in the 1990\u2019s: from that moment on pedagogical norms and values (such as encouraging subjectification) played a minor role in discussions about L1-education. Recent position papers and curriculum proposals however draw attention to the subjectification function of education (Meesterschapsteam 2018, 2021; Ontwikkelteam Nederlands van Curriculum.nu, 2019). This study shows that we should view this recent development as a recovery rather than a radical new beginning.\n\nThese recent developments also raise a question: how can teachers in their day-to-day teaching practices focus on qualification, socialisation and subjectification functions at the same time? In this chapter, we give a first example, based on a renewed lesson for writing style. The students have to write an e-mail to their teacher in a complex communicative situation. This assignment addresses the qualification domain (which formulations shall I use), the socialisation domain (how shall I address the reader) and the subjectification domain (what do I think of this situation; how do I want to answer this situation).\n\nChapter 5 \u2013 Toward meaningful lessons for correct formulation. A matter of alignment.\nCurrent studies provide empirical evidence that modules \u2018correct formulation\u2019 do not align sufficiently with the writing problems of students. Some stylistic lapses and grammatical errors that are being taught in modules correct formulation are extremely rare in students\u2019 writing, whereas others, that are not being taught, occur much more often (chapter two of this dissertation; Van Rijt et al., 2022). What does this finding mean to L1 education? Chapter 5 presents six recommendations. Meaningful lessons for correct formulations (1) focus on stylistic problems that occur often in students\u2019 texts; (2) present stylistic lapses in the context of texts and texts fragments; (3) pay exclusive attention to the transfer of knowledge about (correct) formulation to writing texts; (4) involve students\u2019 formulations in the exercises; (5) distinguish grammatical errors and stylistic deficiencies; (6) present the criteria of the advisory and scientific literature. In this way writing style education will be more meaningful to students and it will contribute more to the quality of their own writing texts.\n\nChapter 6 - Beyond the deadlock. On the design process of innovative written language education for 3rd and 4th-year students from higher and academic secondary education.\nTraditional grammar and writing style teaching at higher and academic secondary schools in the Netherlands learns students to correct errors in single sentences. This prescriptive approach is very much in line with contextual factors of current education, but objections have been raised from a pedagogical perspective. This chapter reports on design research into a renewed module for written error education. In a process of selection, testing and reformulation, we have developed a set of pedagogical direction indicators and a set of didactical design principles. A module for writing style education has been developed on the basis of these sets, in co-creation with eight L1-teachers and three experts. The module focuses on writing style, language proficiency and language awareness.\n\nThe starting point of the development process was that the teacher is the key element of success of good L1-education. Therefore, eight L1-teachers played an important role during the whole process. They were immediately involved in the design phase (discussing design principles), and they were subsequently involved in the pilot phase and the redesign phase. For this intervention we formulated six didactic design principles and six pedagogical direction indicators. The didactic principles are derived from the \u2018grammar for writing\u2019 pedagogy (Myhill et al. 2013; Myhill, 2021). The module Writing style (eight lessons) was developed in co-creation with the aforementioned eight L1-teachers and with three experts (pedagogy, didactics and stylistics).\n\nThe renewed module was piloted and tested for two years in authentic teaching situations. An important goal was to link didactic practices to pedagogical values, in a way that is acceptable and inspiring for teachers. A second goal: the new approach had to be in line with current teaching methods. These two goals have been achieved. The renewed module is strongly accepted by L1-teachers and is sustainably implemented in the curriculum of the schools that participated. The lessons are being taught in an increasing number of other schools. The ideas and exercises that we developed during this intervention study are used in new editions of commercially published schoolbooks.\n\nChapter 7 - Effects of innovative formulation education for 3rd and 4th-year students from higher and academic secondary education.\nThis study discusses the effects of a renewed module for formulating education for 3rd- and 4th-year-students from higher and academic secondary education. The renewed module focused on language proficiency and language awareness. During the lessons students learn to work with writing style strategies which help them to make informed formulation choices to solve rhetorical problems; they learn to use \u2018grammar for writing\u2019 (Myhill et al., 2012). The students also learn to reflect on the effects of their formulations on the reader. Two cohorts of students took part in the intervention. The control cohort received instructions via the regular lessons which are about learning to solve grammatical errors in decontextualised sentences. The experimental cohort followed the renewed lesson series. Four teachers participated with seven classes in the year 2017-2018 (control cohort) and five classes in the year 2019-2020 (experimental cohort). The study took place in their natural classroom environment.\n\nThe students of both cohorts wrote two texts both before and after their lessons. They wrote two informative-persuasive texts (150 words) and two argumentative texts (280 words). In addition, a questionnaire was administered targeting their appreciation of the lessons, their stylistic awareness and their self-efficacy beliefs. The texts that students wrote were analysed based on their use of three writing style strategies: intensifiers, tricolons and sweeping short sentences.\n\nThe results of the student questionnaire (N=276) show that students of the experimental cohort are significantly more positive about the newly developed lessons writing style than the students of the control cohort are about the lessons correct formulation. The newly developed lessons contributed more to the stylistic awareness of the students than the lessons correct formulation. The regular and the renewed lessons had no differential effect on the self-efficacy beliefs of the students. In addition, the text analyses (N=426) showed that students following the renewed lessons used significantly more writing style strategies than the students following the regular lessons. There was a significant effect on the use of tricolons, intensifiers and the sum-score of the three writing style strategies. There is also a genre-effect: students used significantly more writing style strategies in the informative-persuasive texts.\n\nThe first conclusion of this study is that lessons which focus on writing style strategies and grammar for writing can have a significant impact on the writing style of students. The second conclusion is that students appreciate these lessons more than the regular lessons correct formulation. The third conclusion is the new lessons contribute more to their stylistic awareness than the regular lessons. The first conclusion is in line with other empirical studies about the effects of grammar for writing (Myhill et al., 2012; Myhill 2016).\n\nChapter 8 \u2013 General conclusion and discussion\nIn this dissertation, we investigated common practices and a new approach for formulation and writing style education. From our findings we conclude that the common modules correct formulation do not fit the formulation problems that students have while writing their texts. The conclusion is that teaching correct formulation should be adjusted. We presented six recommendations to make these modules more meaningful and more in line with the problems the students actually experience.\n\nSecondly, we investigated the effects of a renewed module for formulating and writing style education for 3rd- and 4th-year-students from higher and academic secondary education. We found three main effects. (1) Questionary data showed that the students of the experimental cohort are significantly more positive about the renewed lessons. (2) Questionary data also showed that these lessons contributed significantly more to the students\u2019 stylistic awareness than the lessons correct formulation. (3) Text analyses showed that students following the renewed lessons significantly used more writing style strategies.\n\nTwo main questions remain open for further studies. (1) What is the relationship between (more) stylistic variation and overall text quality? In answering this question, we need holistic ratings of students\u2019 texts from experts (teachers, linguists). (2) What is the relationship between increasing stylistic awareness and the stylistic choices students make while writing?","auteur":"Jeroen Steenbakkers","auteur_slug":"jeroen-steenbakkers","publicatiedatum":"13 april 2023","taal":"EN","url_flipbook":"https:\/\/ebook.proefschriftmaken.nl\/ebook\/jeroensteenbakkers?iframe=true","url_download_pdf":"","url_epub":"","ordernummer":"FTP-202604030815","isbn":"978-94-6469-268-6","doi_nummer":"","naam_universiteit":"Rijksuniversiteit Groningen","afbeeldingen":14322,"naam_student:":"","binnenwerk":"","universiteit":"Rijksuniversiteit Groningen","cover":"","afwerking":"","cover_afwerking":"","design":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/us_portfolio\/7812","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/us_portfolio"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/us_portfolio"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7812"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/us_portfolio\/7812\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7813,"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/us_portfolio\/7812\/revisions\/7813"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"us_portfolio_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.proefschriftmaken.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/us_portfolio_category?post=7812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}