Scaling Academic Writing Instruction: Evaluation of a Scaffolding Tool (Thesis Writer)

No thesis - no graduation. Academic writing poses manifold challenges to students, instructors and institutions alike. High labor costs, increasing student numbers, and the Bologna Process (which has reduced the period after which undergraduates in Europe submit their first thesis and thus the time available to focus on writing skills) all pose a threat to students’ academic writing abilities. This situation gave rise to the practical goal of this study: to determine if, and to what extent, academic writing and its instruction can be scaled (i.e., designed more efficiently) using a technological solution, in this case Thesis Writer (TW), a domain-specific, online learning environment for the scaffolding of student academic writing, combined with an online editor optimized for producing academic text. Compared to existing automated essay scoring and writing evaluation tools, TW is not focusing on feedback but on instruction, planning, and genre mastery. While most US-based tools, particularly those also used in secondary education, are targeting on the essay genre, TW is tailored to the needs of theses and research article writing (IMRD scheme). This mixed-methods paper reports data of a test run with a first-year course of 102 business administration students. A technology adoption model served as a frame of reference for the research design. From a student’s perspective, problems posed by the task of writing a research proposal as well as the use, usability, and usefulness of TW were studied through an online survey and focus groups (explanatory sequential design). Results seen were positive to highly positive – TW is being used, and has been deemed supportive by students. In particular, it supports the scaling of writing instruction in group assignment settings.

[1]  C. Thaiss,et al.  Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life , 2006 .

[2]  Tiago Oliveira,et al.  Literature Review of Information Technology Adoption Models at Firm Level , 2011 .

[3]  Mary Lea,et al.  Working With Academic Literacies: Case Studies Towards Transformative Practice , 2016 .

[4]  Mary Deane,et al.  Writing in the Disciplines , 1987 .

[5]  H. Cooper,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students' academic learning , 2014 .

[6]  Icek Ajzen,et al.  From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior , 1985 .

[7]  A. Wilkinson,et al.  The Development of Writing , 1980 .

[8]  V. Bhatia Critical reflections on genre analysis , 2012 .

[9]  David Russell,et al.  Writing in the academic disciplines : a curricular history , 2002 .

[10]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[11]  Hayes identifying the organization of wi iiing processes , 1980 .

[12]  Mya Poe,et al.  Learning to Communicate in Science and Engineering: Case Studies from MIT , 2010 .

[13]  J. Hayes Modeling and Remodeling Writing , 2012 .

[14]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 2000 .

[15]  John R. Hayes,et al.  Planning in writing: The cogniton of a constructive process , 1992 .

[16]  Tai-Kuei Yu,et al.  Modelling the factors that affect individuals' utilisation of online learning systems: An empirical study combining the task technology fit model with the theory of planned behaviour , 2010, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[17]  Mun Y. Yi,et al.  Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[19]  Mark Torrance,et al.  Learning to write effectively : Current trends in European research , 2012 .

[20]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  The psychology of written composition , 1987 .

[21]  Julie Coiro,et al.  Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research , 2008 .

[22]  John C. Bean,et al.  Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom , 2011 .

[23]  O. Kruse Wissenschaftliches Schreiben forschungsorientiert unterrichten , 2016 .

[24]  Charles A. MacArthur,et al.  Handbook of Writing Research , 2005 .

[25]  Christian Rapp,et al.  Thesis Writer: A System for Supporting Academic Writing , 2015, CSCW Companion.

[26]  U. Flick,et al.  The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis , 2013 .

[27]  N. Ivankova,et al.  Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field , 2015 .

[28]  L. Gregg,et al.  Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes , 2016 .

[29]  S. Graham,et al.  A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. , 2007 .

[30]  Laura K. Allen,et al.  The Writing Pal Intelligent Tutoring System: Usability Testing and Development , 2014 .

[31]  Otto Kruse,et al.  Exploring European Writing Cultures : Country Reports on Genres, Writing Practices and Languages Used in European Higher Education , 2016 .

[32]  J. Hayes,et al.  A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing , 1981, College Composition & Communication.

[33]  Johnny Saldaña,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2009 .

[34]  Daniel Perrin,et al.  Handbook of writing and text production , 2014 .

[35]  S. Michaels,et al.  A pedagogy of Multiliteracies Designing Social Futures , 1996 .

[36]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[37]  John C. Tang,et al.  Unobtrusive but invasive: using screen recording to collect field data on computer-mediated interaction , 2006, CSCW '06.

[38]  Linda S. Lotto Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods , 1986 .

[39]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[40]  Richard A. Krueger,et al.  Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research / by Richard A. Krueger , 1989 .

[41]  Aek Phakiti,et al.  The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing , 2014 .

[42]  S. Scherer,et al.  Wissenschaftliches Schreiben in Natur- und Technikwissenschaften , 2016 .

[43]  Steven Pearlman,et al.  Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life , 2008 .

[44]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[45]  Ming Liu,et al.  Automatic Generation and Ranking of Questions for Critical Review , 2014, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[46]  O. Kruse,et al.  Prozessorientierte Schreibdidaktik : Grundlagen und Arbeitsformen , 2014 .

[47]  B. Walvoord,et al.  Thinking and Writing in College: A Naturalistic Study of Students in Four Disciplines , 1991 .

[48]  Christian Rapp,et al.  Corpus-supported academic writing: how can technology help? , 2015 .

[49]  Jane E. Klobas,et al.  A task-technology fit view of learning management system impact , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[50]  Thomas Kent,et al.  Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm , 1999 .

[51]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review , 2015, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag..

[52]  Laura K. Allen,et al.  Computer-Based Writing Instruction. , 2016 .

[53]  Christian Rapp,et al.  Thesis writer : supporting writing processes in real time using a web-based digital learning platform , 2015 .

[54]  Ming Liu,et al.  G-Asks: An Intelligent Automatic Question Generation System for Academic Writing Support , 2012, Dialogue Discourse.

[55]  O. Kruse Kritisches Denken als Leitziel der Lehre. Auswege aus der Verschulungsmisere , 2010 .

[56]  J. Creswell Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[57]  Linda Flower,et al.  The Dynamics of Composing : Making Plans and Juggling Constraints , 1980 .

[58]  Jill Burstein,et al.  Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation Current Applications and New Directions , 2018 .

[59]  Sung Youl Park,et al.  An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students' Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[60]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[61]  Janet Mancini Billson,et al.  Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 1989 .

[62]  Reinholdine Breien-Pierson The influence of brain hemisphericity on the composing process of twelfth graders , 1990 .

[63]  Judith A. Langer,et al.  How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning. NCTE Research Report No. 22. , 1987 .

[64]  A. Huberman,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook , 1994 .

[65]  A. Freadman The Traps and Trappings of Genre Theory , 2012 .

[66]  R. T. Kellogg,et al.  Improving the writing skills of college students , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[67]  K. Hone,et al.  Factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in developing countries:A structural equation modeling approach , 2013 .

[68]  O. Kruse Kritisches Denken im Zeichen Bolognas : Rhetorik und Realität , 2010 .

[69]  Otto Kruse Perspectives on Academic Writing in European Higher Education: Genres, Practices, and Competences Perspectivas sobre la escritura acadÈmica en la educaciÛn superior europea: GÈneros, pr·cticas y competencias , 2013 .