project proposal for A computer-supported authoring tool for argumentative writing

1. project proposal forA computer-supported authoring tool for argumentative writing Kalli Benetos email: kbenetos@tele2.ch 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

2. 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. Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

3. 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

4. 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

5. 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) • the resolution of rhetorical problems leads to neither a deeper understanding, nor the development of new ideas Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

6. 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) Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

7. 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 self-monitors” 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) Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

8. 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) • limited capacity to reason • cannot recognize causal relationships • difficulty generating arguments that are varied, valid and developed. • children under 10 have difficulty considering an opposing point of view • difficulty constructing arguments • 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

9. 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 • use of connectives (Akiguet and Piolat, 1996) • organization of arguments • conclusions Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

10. 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

11. 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

12. 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 • determine programming language • find “browser-based solution” • 2nd usability test (teachers) • adapt prototype—interface, schema • 3rd usability test—students • adapt prototype—interface, schéma • recommendations Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

13. 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

14. hypotheses • 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 • 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 • 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. Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

15. evaluation process Methodology • test tool with teachers and 1-2 of their students • 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

16. planning • April : • development of tool • 1st series of interviews: with teachers • adapt schema to include results of interviews • create XSLTs for different output formats • May : • 2nd series of interviews: with teachers • 1st usability test (teachers) with 1st prototype—partial functionality? • interviews • develop functional prototype including results • 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

17. 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/paper4.xml • Architecture (schema of an argumentative text – to be revised): http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf-k/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/staf-k/benetos/staf18/grammar/essay.xml • An example that is filled out: • http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf-k/benetos/staf18/grammar/essay_fill.xml Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos

18. 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 Thesis project proposal by Kalli Benetos