1 / 23

Writing processes during hypertext and linear writing

Writing processes during hypertext and linear writing. Martine Braaksma, Gert Rijlaarsdam, & Huub van den Bergh University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Aim: getting insight in (differences in) writing processes during hypertext writing and linear writing Design:

elmo-doyle
Download Presentation

Writing processes during hypertext and linear writing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Writing processes during hypertext and linear writing Martine Braaksma, Gert Rijlaarsdam, & Huub van den Bergh University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

  2. Aim: getting insight in (differences in) writing processes during hypertext writing and linear writing Design: Experimental lesson series, two conditions: Hypertext writing (HYP) and Linear writing (LIN) (pre- and post-tests) Measurements: all writing tasks from 16 students were logged with Inputlog; 4 students wrote all texts while thinking aloud Process study

  3. Seven lessons (about 70 minutes each) on writing argumentative texts Two conditions (HYP and LIN) All activities in class, no homework Theme: ‘good charities’, documentation provided First 2 lessons, focus on content knowledge based on ‘inquiry learning’ (Hillocks, 1986) exactly the same for the two conditions Lesson 3-7: same learning activities, but writing in HYP or LIN-format Main overview lesson series

  4. Main focus in lessons

  5. 16 students from a secondary school in Amsterdam Recruited from 3 different 10th-grade classes (senior general secondary education) 16-17 years old Volunteered after school time, small financial reward Research took place at our institute Random assignment to conditions: HYP (N=8) LIN (N=8) Participants

  6. Comforting students as they arrived…

  7. Lesson 1: Concept maps

  8. Lesson 3: Practicing with hypertext

  9. Lesson 5: Writing a hypertext

  10. ‘Text measures’ Total number of characters Total number of words Total number of sentences Average words in sentences Total number of paragraphs Average words in paragraphs Average sentences in paragraphs Proportion written words/words in final text ‘Process measures’ Total process time Average process time Total number of pauses Total pause time Average pause time Total writing time Average writing time Total number of segments Proportion writing time/process time Inputlog scores

  11. One way ANOVA's with condition as factor on Inputlog scores in : lesson 4 (writing an introduction, 10 min.) lesson 5 (writing whole text, 90 min.) Analyses

  12. Results lesson 5 (writing whole text): ‘Text measures’

  13. Results lesson 5 (whole text): ‘Process measures’

  14. Results lesson 5 (writing whole text): ‘Process measures’

  15. Hypertext writing: more sentences (also in lesson 4, writing introduction) more paragraphs more writing time (production time) larger proportion writing time/process time Linear writing: more pausing time (not: more pauses) longer pauses more words in sentences (also in lesson 4, writing introduction) Summary results lesson 5 (writing whole text)

  16. Measurement of text quality of hypertexts and linear texts written in lesson 5 Rated at 18 criteria (e.g., structure, attractiveness, awareness of the reader, goal of the text): -, +/-, + Cronbach’s alpha = .80 No differences between conditions: (p= .699) LIN = 10.1 (SD 2.6) HYP = 9.6 (SD 3.6) Different processes? Different quality?

  17. Coding scheme text quality

  18. Preliminary analyses lesson 7 • Revision task with condition change for half of the students: • So, interested in differences between conditions (HYP vs. LIN) and differences in modus (4 x)

  19. Differences between conditions look like effects we have shown before: HYP: + sentences, paragraphs, total writing time, proportion writing time/process time LIN: + total pause time, average pause time (new: number of pauses) Lesson 7 (revision task): Differences between conditions

  20. Modus differences between lesson 5 & 7: Proportion writing time/process time HYP HYP HYP LIN LIN LIN Writing task Revision task

  21. Different process characteristics for hypertext writing and linear writing HYP: + sentences, paragraphs, writing time More fluent writing, due to argumentation structure = document structure? LIN: + pausing time, longer pauses Involved in linearization process, formulation of linguistic indicators/connectives? Discussion

  22. Argumentation structure

  23. Slides, lesson materials, publications, research plan at: http://www.ilo.uva.nl/homepages/martine/.htm Email: braaksma@uva.nl More information

More Related