Enhancing Writing-Related Metacognitions Through a Computerized Writing Partner

The main purpose of this study was to test the general hypothesis that ongoing computerized procedural facilitation with strategies and writing-related metacognitions during writing improves learners’ writing while being helped, as well as leaves a cognitive residue in the form of subsequently improved writing, once that help is removed. Three groups of 20 ninth to eleventh graders participated in the study. One group wrote five essays while being guided by unsolicited continuous metacognitive-like guides presented by a specially designed computer tool (the Writing Partner); a second group received the same guidance but only upon the writer’s voluntary solicitation; and the third group received no guidance and wrote with only a word processor (control group). The study’s main hypothesis was confirmed with respect to the unsolicited-guidance group which wrote better training essays, showed evidence of having internalized the explicitly provided guidance, and demonstrated significant subsequent improvement in writing when no computerized tool was available anymore. The solicited-guidance group and the control group showed virtually no improvement, and unlike in the unsolicited-guidance group, initially poorer writers continued to lag behind initially better writers.

[1]  Donald Morison Murray,et al.  A writer teaches writing , 1968 .

[2]  G. Salomon,et al.  The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a Reading Partner. , 1989 .

[3]  A. Sappington,et al.  Recent psychological approaches to the free will versus determinism issue. , 1990 .

[4]  G. Salomon.  Studying the flute and the orchestra: controlled vs. classroom research on computers , 1990 .

[5]  Elizabeth B. Bernhardt,et al.  Learning and comprehension of text , 1988 .

[6]  Colette Daiute,et al.  Writing and Computers , 1985 .

[7]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Aptitude and instructional methods , 1977 .

[8]  Joseph Lawlor,et al.  Computers in Composition Instruction , 1983 .

[9]  M. Wittrock.  Handbook of research on teaching , 1986 .

[10]  John Kruidenier,et al.  A self-questioning strategy to increase young writers' revising processes , 1985, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[11]  George H. Culp,et al.  Stimulating Invention in English Composition through Computer-Assisted Instruction. , 1980 .

[12]  N. Sommers.  Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers , 1980, College Composition & Communication.

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

[14]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environments , 1989 .

[15]  Susan Florio-Ruane,et al.  Teaching Writing: Some Perennial Questions and Some Possible Answers. Occasional Paper No. 85. , 1985 .

[16]  R. Glaser.  Advances in Instructional Psychology , 1978 .

[17]  Richard Beach,et al.  New directions in composition research , 1984 .

[18]  J. Hayes,et al.  Writing Research and the Writer. , 1986 .

[19]  D. Perkins,et al.  Rocky Roads to Transfer: Rethinking Mechanism of a Neglected Phenomenon , 1989 .

[20]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

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

[22]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

[23]  J. Brehm,et al.  Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control , 1981 .

[24]  D. Perkins.  The Fingertip Effect: How Information-Processing Technology Shapes Thinking , 1985 .

[25]  Gavriel Salomon,et al.  Cognitive Effects With and Of Computer Technology , 1990 .