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_at_tele2.ch
• tel [phone]

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
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.

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 Snyders 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

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

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 gtgt 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 authors 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

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)

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 structuringallows 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)

8
problem

• Why is written argumentation so difficult?
• difficulty recognizing bias of a statement in an
  argumentative text before 1112 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

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

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

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

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 prototypeinterface, schema
• 3rd usability teststudents
• adapt prototypeinterface, schéma
• recommendations

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

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.

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

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
  prototypepartial functionality?
• interviews
• develop functional prototype including results
• early June
• 3rd series of interviews 2nd usability test
  (teachers)
• adapt prototypeinterface, schema
• June
• evaluation of tool
• 3rd usability test (students)

17
additional links

• This presentation on-line http//grover.local/tec
  faweb/0thesis/project_pres_en.ppt
• A preliminary example
• A paper on the preliminary project
  http//tecfaseed.unige.ch/staf18/modules/ePBL/uplo
  ads/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/g
  rammar/essay.xml
• An example that is filled out
• http//tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf-k/benetos/staf18/g
  rammar/essay_fill.xml

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
  largumentation 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,
  lthttp//www.eits.uga.edu/tti/review/3_Emma.htmlgt
• 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