Hypertext writing, observational learning, and inquiry learning as supplementary teaching methods

1. Hypertext writing, observational learning, and inquiry learning as supplementary teaching methods Martine Braaksma, Gert Rijlaarsdam & Michel Couzijn Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, University of Amsterdam

2. Program of the workshop Background of the project Overview of the lesson series Hands on: inquiry learning Hands on: (observation of) writing activities Discussion of experiences

3. Hypertext �Digital text in which information is organized as a network and in which text blocks are connected via hyperlinks

4. For instance Texts on the Internet en encyclopedias on CD ROM

5. Some examples of hypertexts

6. Examples (continued)

7. Effects of hypertext writing versus linear writing on: Writing skills Content knowledge

8. Hypertext writing 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

9. Extra didactic intervention: Observational learning Instead of writing themselves Learning from other writers at work (models) Different aspects of writing are focused on (e.g., starting, thinking of arguments, thinking of a title, revising) So: three comparisons: Linear writing Hypertext writing Observational learning (observation of (hypertext) writing activities)

10. Overview of the project 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 study 3. Study 3. Experimental study: comparison of three conditions: Observational learning (OBS), HYP and LIN on writing skills and content knowledge

11. Design

12. Main overview lesson series 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

13. Inquiry learning No providing of knowledge by the teacher Students discover knowledge themselves Active interaction with subject Focus on criteria development, formulation of definitions

14. Main focus in lessons

15. Hands on: Inquiry learning Good charities cards Writing a definition Evaluation of experiences A look at the �jury game�

16. Hands on: (Hypertext) writing and observational learning Observation of hypertext writing Observation of thinking of a title Evaluation of experiences A look at the final writing instruction

17. Discussion Experiences during hands on and/or own experiences Questions, suggestions Implementation in own lessons?

18. More information Lesson materials, research plan, pictures, examples hypertexts, slides at: http://www.ilo.uva.nl/homepages/martine.htm Email: braaksma@uva.nl

19. Some examples of Observational learning Observation of two students (Floor and Toon) who are thinking of a title of their text Instruction: observe Floor and Toon and compare their performances: Toon / Floor performed better / less well Clarify your answer: ����������������������������������������������������

20. Some results Study 1: Effects of HYP versus LIN on writing skills and content knowledge (N = 105) Study 2: Differences between HYP and LIN writing processes (N=18) Study 3: Effects of HYP, OBS and LIN on writing skills and content knowledge (N = 139). Data analysis in progress

21. Study 1: Effects on Text Quality (NB of a linear text) 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

22. Results study 1: Effects on global Text Quality

23. Study 1: Effects on Content Knowledge (concept map) 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)

24. Example of a concept map

25. Results study 1: Effects on content knowledge No differences on post-test between conditions on qualitative & quantitative aspects (with pre-test as covariate) No interaction with aptitude For study 3: new measurement of content knowledge. Questionnaire which is more focused to issue / writing topic. Mc questions, true/not true questions and three open questions.

26. Study 2. Differences between HYP and LIN writing: �Text measures�

27. Study 2. Differences between HYP and LIN writing: �Process measures�

28. Study 2. Differences between HYP and LIN writing: �Process measures�

29. Discussion study 2 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?

30. Argumentation structure