Transcript Document

project proposal for
A computer-supported authoring tool for
argumentative writing
Kalli Benetos
email: [email protected]
tel: 044 320 09 72
Thesis proposal for M Sc MALTT (Master of Science in Learning and Teaching Technologies) with the
Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Éducation at the University of Geneva
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
thesis project goals
 GOAL: Develop a computer-supported tool to help
learners aged 10 – 16
 learn the components of an argumentative text
 generate arguments in stages

broaden and deepen their arguments

better structure and organize their texts linearly

better understand the subject of their written texts

produce a text in a digitized format that can be
saved, edited, revised and printed at will.
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
background: theoretical models and research
Writing to learn: effect of the writing process on
learning
Writing styles : (Galbraith 1996 in Galbraith, 1998)
(based on Snyder’s scale of personality types (1986)
 Low self-monitors : generate most of their ideas while
writing
 High self-monitors : generate most of their ideas
during note-taking prior to writing
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
background: theoretical models and research
Knowledge-transforming vs Knowledge-telling models of
writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia 1987)
For Bereiter and Scardamalia, the rhetorical goal of a text
incite exploration that leads to discovery of new
knowledge/ideas
Two processes are used, depending on the capacities
and knowledge of the author:
 Knowledge-telling: ideas that respond to the rhetorical

goal are retrieved from long-term memory and
transferred directly into written text
Knowledge-transforming: ideas retrieved from memory
are transformed by the effort to resolve a conflict
between the ideas and the rhetorical goal
 resulting in the generation of new ideas, content and a
deeper understanding of the subject
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
background: theoretical models and research
Knowledge-constituting model of writing (Galbraith 1996 in Galbraith, 1998)
Content is derived from:

Dispositional dialectic: translation process that takes place during a cycle of
“spontaneous articulation of thought… during text production” that responds
to the stimulus of the emerging text – Galbraith (1998)

subject & task >> network of ideas (“ units ”)



If an idea is satisfactory, other ideas are suppressed
If an idea is unsatisfactory, other ideas are examined

Emergence of new or contradictory ideas
author is lead to a broader and deeper understanding of the subject
Limitations :

dependent on author’s knowledge of the subject




the quantity of ideas invoked
the complexity of the semantic network invoked
linguistic capacity (expression)
“translation” strategies used by the author



type of planning (e.g. outline vs. Free flow)
format of output (notes, prose, graphic)
rhetorical goal
NOTE: rhetorical planning is only a “reorganization of existing ideas”…
“retrieved from episodic memory” – Galbraith (1998)

March 31, 2006
the resolution of rhetorical problems leads to neither a deeper understanding, nor the
development of new ideas
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
background: theoretical models and research
Genre hypothesis (in Klein, 1999):
The type of discourse effects the ideas generated and the text
produced

the production of argumentative texts in particular forces
information and ideas be organized in a way that reveals
relationships between the presented ideas and the subject.
Forward search hypothesis :
The permanence of a written text allows for revision of ideas
presented. (in Klein, 1999)
Backward search hypothesis :
Learning is a result of the process of resolving problems to attain
a rhetorical goal. (in Klein, 1999)
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
background: theoretical models and research
Written argumentation implies and demands planning towards a rhetorical goal
(Bereiter & Scardamalia)




Fix sub-goals, find support or re-evaluated arguments
Young writers (13-14 or younger) and novice writers are “low-self monitors”
(Golder & Coirier)
production of argumentative texts demands strategies used by both “low
self-monitors” and “high self-monitors”
structuring argumentative texts demands strategies used by “high selfmonitors”
Structural supports for text composition
 « idea-organization phase plays and essential role in the framing and
organization of ideas into a hierarchical and temporal structure » - Isnard
& Piolat
 « Mandatory structuring…allows writers to discover new ideas » - Isnard &
Piolat
 scaffolding offered by structural aids during the composition phase can
increase ‘self-monitoring’ and cognitive load and inhibit the generation of
ideas (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1997 in Greene, 2001),
 but structural aids during composition leads to better global coherence
and cohesion of a text (Greene)
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
problem
Why is written argumentation so difficult?

difficulty recognizing bias of a statement in an argumentative
text before 11–12 years of age.(Brassart, 1996)



difficulty generating arguments that are varied, valid and
developed.


limited capacity to reason
cannot recognize causal relationships
children under 10 have difficulty considering an opposing point
of view
difficulty constructing arguments


March 31, 2006
children under 12 show difficulty using connectives (thus, but,
therefore, etc.) (Akiguet & Piolat, 1996) (Dolz, 1996)
significant cognitive load involved in considering diverging points
of view and rhetorical goal during the composition of a text
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
research question
 Can a computer-supported “authoring tool” based on an
underlying schema of an argumentative text help to improve
texts written by novices of argumentative writing?


quantity of arguments
quality of arguments

scope
 Variety of arguments
 Epistemological point of view (Baker, Quignard, Lund, Séjourné,
2003)
 Function of the argument (support and/or negotiate)
(Dolz,1996)

depth
 inclusion of counter-arguments and conclusions(Brassart, 1996)

structural quality of arguments and texte as a whole



March 31, 2006
use of connectives (Akiguet and Piolat, 1996)
organization of arguments
conclusions
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
participants



2 or 3 teachers of argumentative writing
1 or 2 students per teacher that will use the final prototype
under observation
Level: 10 – 16 years old
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
determining usability
 Usability test results from preliminary project




at tool that guides the cognitive activity and provides structural
aid during the writing process can help users improve their
argumentative writing
the possibility to edit and save a written text in a digital format
that allows further modification and printing was appreciated
scaffolding offered by the textual aid accompanying form text
fields to be filled out allows for reflection on the relevance and
the form of arguments presented
The tool can improve their knowledge of the components of
argumentative writing
 Interviews with teachers needed to determine



the methods and supports currently used to teach
argumentative writing
the expectations of a computer-supported tool
the level of integration of computer-supported tools in the
teaching of argumentative writing
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
development phases
 Development of the authoring tool

determine user needs



interviews
1st usability test using 1st prototype (teachers)
adapt prototype
 interface
 Schema (architecture)

develop a functional prototype incorporating results from
interviews and usability tests



2nd usability test (teachers)


determine programming language
find “browser-based solution”
adapt prototype—interface, schema
3rd usability test—students


March 31, 2006
adapt prototype—interface, schéma
recommendations
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
functional specifications
Authoring tool will

guide the cognitive process

include a space for non-structured text generation (note-taking)
 (knowledge-transforming(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987) or dispositional
dialectic (Galbraith, 1996)







offer varied models of arguments that can be filled out, edited and
further developed through text fields and contextual menus.
offer argument models that will include fields that will require
reflection upon the nature and validity of each argument
allow for a rearranging of the order of arguments
offer the possibility to view text with or without structural aid
comments and visual indicators.
allow users to save text in various digital formats (pdf, xml, txt, etc.)
be based on XML
be accessible through a browser interface
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
hypotheses
1.
A computer-supported authoring tool based on a schema inherent
to written argumentative texts can help improve the texts written by
novices of written argumentation compared to traditional supports,


in the quantity of arguments produced
in the quality of arguments produced

scope


depth


inclusion of counter-arguments and conclusions (Brassart, 1996)
structural quality of arguments and texte as a whole



2.
variety of arguments

epistemological point of view (Baker, Quignard, Lund, Séjourné, 2003)

function of the argument (support and/or negotiate) (Dolz,1996)
use of connectives (Akiguet and Piolat, 1996)
organization of arguments
conclusions
Through the use of a computer-supported authoring tool that offers
structural and cognitive aid, novices will learn to recognize the
component of the schema inherent to argumentative writing.
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
evaluation process
Methodology
1.
test tool with teachers and 1-2 of their students



2.
choose between 2 or 3 topics (so that students are interested in the topic they will
write about)
students will have received previous instruction on argumentative writing and its
components
students will write an argumentative text using the computer-supported tool that will
be developed.
post-test

students will mark up a prepared argumentative text to indicate the various
components of the underlying schema
Evaluation to answer research questions

evaluation of written texts according to defined criteria




generation of arguments – quantity, quality
quality of the global structure of the text
other criteria to be developed with teachers during interviews
evaluation of post-test results
Evaluation of authoring tool functionality


usability tests – teachers and students
interviews with students and teachers
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
planning
 April :

development of tool



1st series of interviews: with teachers
adapt schema to include results of interviews
create XSLTs for different output formats

2nd series of interviews: with teachers

develop functional prototype including results
 May :


1st usability test (teachers) with 1st prototype—partial functionality?
interviews
 early June :


3rd series of interviews: 2nd usability test (teachers)
adapt prototype—interface, schema
 June :

evaluation of tool

3rd usability test (students)



observation during writing task
post-test
interviews
 students
 Teachers
 July – September

write thesis
 October

defense
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
additional links
 This presentation on-line:
http://grover.local/tecfaweb/0thesis/project_pres_en.ppt
 A preliminary example





A paper on the preliminary project:
http://tecfaseed.unige.ch/staf18/modules/ePBL/uploads/proj7/paper
4.xml
Architecture (schema of an argumentative text – to be revised):
http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/stafk/benetos/staf18/documentation/index.htm
Example of a possible interface: once developed the parts in light
blue will be form text fields http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/stafk/benetos/staf18/grammar/essay.xml
An example that is filled out:
http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/stafk/benetos/staf18/grammar/essay_fill.xml
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos
references










Akiguet S. Piolat A.1996. Insertion of Connectives by 9- to 11-Year-Old Children in an
Argumentative Text, Argumentation, Volume 10, No. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Brassart D. G. 1996. Didactique de l’argumentation écrite: Approches psycho-cognitives,
Argumentation, Volume 10, No. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Desmet C., Department of English, University of Georgia, Bringing Up EMMA: Developing Writing
Software with XML at The University of Georgia, <http://www.eits.uga.edu/tti/review/3_Emma.html>
Dolz J. 1996. Learning Argumentative Capacities. A study of the effects of a systematic and
intensive teaching of argumentative discourse in 11-12 year old children, Argumentation, Volume
10, No. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Galbraith D. 1998. Writing as a Knowledge-Constituting Process
Green S. 2001. A Study of the Effects of Content and Structural Support in Writing Tasks, a Paper
presented at the British Eductional Research Association Conference, University of Leedsm 13-15
September
Golder C., Coirier P. 1996. The Production and Recognition of Typological Argumentative Test
Markers, Argumentation, Volume 10, No. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Isnard N., Piolat A. Effects of Different Types of Planning on the Writing of Argumentative Text,
University of Provence, Aix en Provence
Klein P. 1999. Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-to-Learn, Educational
Psychology Review, Vol 11, No. 3
Roussey J., Gombert A. 1996. Improving Argumentative Writing Skills: Effect of Two Types of Aids,
Argumentation, Volume 10, No. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers
March 31, 2006
Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos