Hypertext writing: Effects on writing processes and writing products

1. Hypertext writing: Effects on writing processes and writing products Martine Braaksma, Gert Rijlaarsdam, & Huub van den Bergh Earli Conference, August 25th-29th, Amsterdam

2. Hypertext writing as a way to enhance learning (learning to write) Beneficial effects on: Writing skills (writing processes and text quality): Hypertext writing: students become aware of hierarchical text structures Hypertext writing: more planning and analysis than linear writing More planning & analysis = better product quality of hypertext and linear text Hypertext writing: more learning time on structuring information Hypertext writing

3. Effects of hypertext writing compared to linear writing on: Writing skills (text quality, writing processes) Design: Pre-tests (e.g., aptitude, computer skills) Experimental lesson series, two conditions: Hypertext writing (HYP) and Linear writing (LIN) Post-tests (e.g., writing of a linear text) Participants: 102 tenth-grade students, HYP (N = 42), LIN (N = 63) Experiment was part of regular lessons at school, whole classes were assigned to conditions (2 classes HYP, 3 classes LIN) For a sample of participants (N = 59) the writing of the linear text in the post-test was logged with a key stroke logging program (Inputlog) For another sample of participants (N = 16) the writing of the hypertext or linear text in the intervention was logged with Inputlog The present study

4. Five lessons (70 minutes each) on writing argumentative texts Teacher manual and student workbooks All activities in the lessons, no homework Theme is ‘good charities’, documentation provided First 2 lessons based on ‘inquiry learning’ (Hillocks, 1995) Two conditions (HYP and LIN) First 2 lessons exactly the same for the two conditions, lesson 3-5: writing activities in LIN or HYP format Main overview lesson series

5. Structure of lessons, main focus

6. No a-priori differences between conditions on Computer skills (p =.623) Aptitude (p = .486) Results: Pre-test scores

7. Global text quality (school mark between 0-10), based on requirements that were presented to the students, e.g., Goal of the text (convincing the reader) Attractiveness Awareness of the reader Structure Effects on text quality (linear text)

8. Results: Effects on global text quality

9. Results: Effects on writing processes during hypertext and linear writing (1)

10. Results: Effects on writing processes during hypertext and linear writing (2)

11. Focus on different pause locations during writing: Pausing within words Pausing between words Pausing between sentences Pausing between paragraphs Focus on production activities during writing In three phases of the writing process (start, middle, end) Effects on pausing and production activities during hypertext and linear writing and its relation with text quality

12. Results: Relations between activities and resulting text quality

13. Results: Differences for pause locations and production between LIN and HYP writing

14. Differences in process characteristics between HYP and LIN writing: LIN: more time spent in pausing between words at the start of the writing process and in pausing between sentences in the middle part of the writing process than HYP HYP: more frequently and during a longer period production activities than LIN during the whole writing process In line with more general differences in production time (HYP > LIN) and pausing time (LIN > HYP) Some of the activities that were mainly performed by LIN were negatively related with text quality and activities that were mainly performed by HYP were positively related with text quality No main effects from hypertext writing on global text quality, ‘only’ ATI on text quality: HYP+ Summary of results

15. Results: Differences for pause locations and production between LIN and HYP writing Negative relation with text Quality Positive relation with text Quality

16. Different process characteristics for hypertext writing and linear writing: HYP: > writing time during whole writing process More fluent writing, because of hierarchical writing plan mirrors document structure? LIN: > pausing time, longer pauses (especially between words in start and sentences in middle of writing process) More involved in linearization process, formulation of linguistic indicators/connectives? Conclusions

17. Replication of earlier findings (Braaksma et al, 2002): HYP writing shows more activities that were positively related with text quality than LIN writing? Current study: Process characteristics were assessed with key stroke logging instead of think-aloud (no content) Only for two activities that differed between HYP and LIN a relation was found with text quality Effects are quite small Future analyses: relation between process characteristics of linear writing post-test with text quality? Differences between HYP / LIN? Also ATI-effect? Discussion

18. Paper, slides, publications, lesson materials at: http://www.ilo.uva.nl/homepages/martine.htm Email: braaksma@uva.nl More information