Writing hypertext: Learning and transfer effects

1. Writing hypertext: Learning and transfer effects Martine Braaksma, Gert Rijlaarsdam, & Huub van den Bergh Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, University of Amsterdam

2. Welcome and introduction Information and discussion about the rationale of the project, design, and developed experimental lesson series Presentation and discussion of some results. We are particularly interested in your ideas about the (preliminary) results of our last experiment (study 3) Closing Program

3. Beneficial effects on: Writing skills (writing processes and text quality): Hypertext writing: students learn to cope with linearization process Hypertext writing: more planning and analysis than linear writing More planning & analysis = better product quality of hypertext and linear text Content knowledge (topic of writing): Hypertext writing: more knowledge transforming activities Hypertext writing

4. Study 1. Construction study: developing and testing of lesson series and testing materials & effects of HYP versus LIN on writing skills and content knowledge Study 2. Process study: learning and writing processes during HYP and LIN writing. Process are logged and recorded on video (TA’s): Insight into processes during LIN and HYP writing & materials as input for Observational learning (OBS) in study 3. Study 3. Experimental study: comparison of three conditions: OBS, HYP, and LIN on writing skills and content knowledge Overview of the project

5. Design

6. Five lessons (about 60 minutes each) on writing argumentative texts Three conditions (HYP, LIN and OBS) All activities in class, no homework Theme: ‘good charities’, issue about connection commercial lotteries and good charities, documentation provided First 2 lessons, focus on content knowledge based on ‘inquiry learning’ (Hillocks, 1986) exactly the same for the three conditions Lesson 3-5: same learning activities, but writing in HYP, LIN or OBS-format Main overview lesson series

7. Main focus in lessons

8. Some examples of hypertexts Introduction Standpoint Definition good charity Pro arguments Counter arguments

9. Examples (continued) Main arguments Conclusion Standpoint

10. Focus on (writing) strategies, “critical incidents”, for instance, structure of hypertext, thinking of a title, starting and ending of writing process, selection of arguments Models are peer models, working “naturally” (no script) After observation answering of evaluation and reflection questions When possible: comparison of models (contrast) In total 55 fragments to observe (in three lessons) Observational learning

11. Study 1: Effects of HYP versus LIN on writing skills and content knowledge (N = 105; whole classes assigned to conditions, in schools, own teacher as instructor) Study 2: Differences between HYP and LIN writing processes (N=16, participants assigned to conditions, at ILO, ILO-teacher as instructor) Study 3: Effects of HYP, OBS and LIN on writing skills and content knowledge (N = 139; participants assigned to conditions, in school, ILO-teacher as instructor) Some results

12. Global text quality (school mark between 0-10), based on requirements that were presented to the students, e.g., Goal of the text Attractiveness Awareness of the reader Study 1: Effects on text quality (NB of a linear text)

13. Results study 1: Effects on global Text Quality

14. Quantitative aspects number of concepts and relations hierarchy of concepts (number of levels) Qualitative aspects level of abstraction (categorization of concepts) variance (different aspects of topic) Study 1: Effects on Content Knowledge (concept map)

15. money volunteers giro supporters Good charities disaster aids charity Poor seals Country in war Country with famine People with renal diseases Example of a concept map collections

16. No differences on post-test between conditions on qualitative & quantitative aspects (with pre-test as covariate) No interaction with aptitude Results study 1: Effects on content knowledge

17. Introduction hypertext writing earlier in lesson series (start lesson 3) and connected to argumentative knowledge and content Also LIN writes then a short argumentative text (no filler activity) Students give and receive feedback on that (hyper)text New measurement of text quality (30 minutes, argumentative text based on short sources) Also measurement of text quality as pre-test New measurement of content knowledge. Questionnaire which is more focused to issue / writing topic. Mc questions, true/not true questions and three open questions. Changes for study 2 and 3

18. Study 2. Differences between HYP and LIN writing: ‘Text measures’

19. Results study 2: Effects on writing processes during hypertext and linear writing (1)

20. Results study 2: Effects on writing processes during hypertext and linear writing (2)

21. Focus on different pause locations during writing: Pausing within words Pausing between words Pausing between sentences Pausing between paragraphs Focus on production activities during writing In three phases of the writing process (start, middle, end) Study 2: Effects on pausing and production activities during hypertext and linear writing and its relation with text quality

22. Study 2. Results: Relations between activities and resulting text quality

23. Study 2. Results: Differences for pause locations and production between LIN and HYP writing

24. Differences in process characteristics between HYP and LIN writing: LIN: more time spent in pausing between words at the start of the writing process and in pausing between sentences in the middle part of the writing process than HYP (= more involved in linearization process?) HYP: more frequently and during a longer period production activities than LIN during the whole writing process (= more fluent writing?) In line with more general differences in production time (HYP > LIN) and pausing time (LIN > HYP) Some of the activities that were mainly performed by LIN were negatively related with text quality and activities that were mainly performed by HYP were positively related with text quality Study 2: summary of results

25. Results: Differences for pause locations and production between LIN and HYP writing Negative relation with text quality Positive relation with text quality

26. Changes to study 1 and 2: Grade-11 instead of Grade-10 Pre-university level instead of general higher education Assignment of participants to conditions (three conditions in one class room: LIN, HYP, OBS) ILO-instructor instead of own teacher Five classes participated: four as experimental groups, one class followed normal argumentative writing lessons (own teacher, text book) but made pre-tests and post-tests Background study 3

27. Reliabilities, relations between different pre-tests and post-tests (see hand out) No differences between conditions at all pre-tests (see hand out) Selection of cases (present at: pre-test, lesson 3-5, and post test, 75% of participants, N= 104) Effects on text quality (see hand out) Effects on self-efficacy for writing (see hand out) Effects on content knowledge (see hand out) No information yet about effects on writing processes (Inputlog), knowledge about writing and development of self-efficacy during lessons Results study 3 (preliminary)

28. Coded analytically: E.g., structure, introduction, goal of the text, attractiveness, awareness of the reader, grammar and style, argumentation, ending Text quality, whole scale (23 items): GLM, repeated measurement Post-test > pre test Condition effect (p = 0.034) HYP >Control condition (p = 0.046) Text quality, sub scale argumentation (6 items): GLM, repeated measurement Post-test > pre test Condition effect (p = 0.006) HYP >Control condition (p = 0.006) LIN >Control condition (p = 0.041) Effects on text quality

29. Questionnaire (18 items) with statements about (argumentative writing) GLM, repeated measurement Post-test > pre test No condition effect (p = 0.730) Effects on self-efficacy for writing

30. Two open questions related to the issue / topic of writing GLM, repeated measurement Post-test > pre test Almost condition effect (p = 0.052) LIN > OBS (p = 0.057) Effects on content knowledge

31. HYP and OBS are no real winners at all measurements, explanations? New analyses: interactions with writing style, aptitude, over / under -estimation of own writing skills (calibration score of self-efficacy and text quality), … Other suggestions, ideas, cooperation, …? Discussion results study 3

32. Lesson materials, research plan, slides, publications at: http://www.ilo.uva.nl/homepages/martine.htm Email: braaksma@uva.nl More information