Web-based Interactive Writing Environment: Development and Evaluation

This study reports the development and evaluation of a web-based interactive writing environment designed for elementary school students. The environment includes three writing themes, “story pass on”, “story chameleon” and “thousand ideas”, to encourage reading comprehension, creativity and problem-solving skills of students. Three assessment mechanisms, expert assessment, self-assessment and peer assessment, are also designed to provide constructive comments to foster students to review and criticize other writers’ essay, to enable students to review their own essay to find strengths and weaknesses in writing, and to encourage students to improve their writing skills. The writing environment comprises four functional modules – writing, assessment, tool and system management. The system was integrated with multilayer educational services platforms, which are designed to support the establishment of online social learning communities for K-12 students and teachers. The system logs and assessment results have been analyzed through the system usage over two years. The results reveal that students can improve their writing skills by participating in the writing environment, submitting many essays, interacting with other students online and reviewing other essays. The comparison result of early and late student writing also demonstrates the improvement of writing. Analysis of the assessment mechanism reveals that expert assessment and peer assessment do not significantly differ. It appears that the assessment criteria proposed in this study fit the needs of both the expert and elementary school students. It is convinced this writing environment effectively helps students to write with designed social interaction, creative writing themes, and reflective assessment criteria.

[1]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Advanced Outlines, Familiarity, and Text Genre on Retention of Prose. , 1980 .

[2]  S. Hidi,et al.  Children's argument writing, interest and self-efficacy: an intervention study , 2002 .

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

[4]  Roger Bruning,et al.  Developing Motivation to Write , 2000 .

[5]  Jill Burstein,et al.  Automated Essay Scoring : A Cross-disciplinary Perspective , 2003 .

[6]  Jie-Chi Yang,et al.  EduXs: multilayer educational services platforms , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[7]  Martin Chodorow,et al.  Automated Essay Evaluation: The Criterion Online Writing Service , 2004, AI Mag..

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

[9]  S. Hidi,et al.  Motivational factors and writing: the role of topic interestingness , 1991 .

[10]  Roy Rada,et al.  Efficiency and effectiveness in computer-supported peer-peer learning , 1998 .

[11]  Eric Zhi-Feng Liu,et al.  Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[12]  N. Falchikov.  Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment , 1995 .

[13]  Irit Bar-Natan,et al.  Writing development of Arab and Jewish students using cooperative learning (CL) and computer-mediated communication (CMC) , 2002, Comput. Educ..

[14]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Finding the WRITE Stuff: Automatic Identification of Discourse Structure in Student Essays , 2003, IEEE Intell. Syst..

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

[16]  K. A. Renninger,et al.  Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems , 2002 .

[17]  Colette Daiute.  Issues in using computers to socialize the writing process , 1985 .

[18]  Michael J. Hannafin,et al.  Effects of Word Processing on Sixth Graders' Holistic Writing and Revisions , 1992 .

[19]  K. Topping.  Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities , 1998 .

[20]  Tak-Wai Chan,et al.  Four spaces of network learning models , 2001, Comput. Educ..

[21]  C. Breese,et al.  Promise in Impermanence: Children Writing with Unlimited Access to Word Processors. , 1996 .

[22]  Martha C. Pennington,et al.  THE COMPUTER VS. THE PEN: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF WORD PROCESSING IN A HONG KONG SECONDARY CLASSROOM , 1995 .