Computers in writing instruction

Schwartz, Helen J.; Geest, Thea van der; Smit-Kreuzen, Marlies

doi:10.1016/0883-0355(92)90040-d

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier research within the same project (Kleine Staarman, 2003) showed that children were less hesitant to give their opinion in online discussions and seemed better able to evaluate their ideas against those of others, when they were able to check their ideas with someone sitting next to them first before posting their ideas to the whole-class online discussion. In addition, writing on the computer tends to help children to develop a better understanding of the writing process since the combination of word processing software and a writing partner can serve to scaffold the students' writing process (Schwartz, Van der Geest, & Smit-Kreuzen, 1992;).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The joint negotiation of ground rules: establishing a shared collaborative practice with new educational technology

Staarman

2009

Language and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classroom discourse is structured by socially accepted ways in which knowledge is presented and by established procedures for carrying out educational activities.However, the underlying linguistic and social ground rules are usually implicit, for students as well as for teachers. The implicitness of these ground rules has been attributed to students' failure to successfully participate in educational discourse. In this paper, I describe a research project in which primary students jointly negotiated ground rules for working together in an online discussion forum. The aims of the study were to examine a) how collaborative practices were created in interaction and b) how participants made visible to each other what counted as appropriate collaborative discourse. The findings indicate that there are many implicit ground rules in place 2 when a new mode of communication is introduced in the classroom. Moreover, students and teachers do not always share the same (implicit) understanding about what is and is not an appropriate communicative action in new learning environments.One of the conclusions that can be drawn from the data is that when introducing new communication technology in classrooms a new educational genre of communicating needs to be defined and underlying ground rules need to be re-established within the particular educational context.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The joint negotiation of ground rules: establishing a shared collaborative practice with new educational technology

Staarman

2009

Language and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The computer as means of communication for peer-review groups

Geest

Remmers

1994

Computers and Composition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a scientific-writing course, 15 of 54 students used o review-supporting computer program, PREP-EDITOR (PREP), to communicate with their peers about drafts. In an exploratory study, 10 students were interviewed regularly: 5 used PREP and 5 met face-to-face to exchange comments on drafts. The study showed that use of PREP did not increase time spent on various writing activities. The PREP group reported a large number of computer-related problems, whereas the non-PREP group reported more difficulties with assignments and course organization.It appeared that the technology was omnipresent in PREP users' perception of the course. The system of computer-mediated peer review has many of the drawbacks of "distance learning," but because networks are increasingly used by collaborating authors, we should teach our students how to use them sensibly. COMPUTER-MEDIATED SMALL-GROUP WRITINGOpting for Collaboration' The literature on computer-assisted collaborative writing and writing instruction suggests a wide range of reasons why teachers want their students to write collaboratively. Some of these articles (often citing the work of Bruffee) seem to value collaborative writing because it represents collaborative learning; their goal is, in the first instance, pedagogical. They believe learning in general should take place in an environment that enhances active involvement of students: Collaborative writing groups provide such an environment in a challenging instructional situation. For others (often quoting Bakhtin), the main value of collaborative writing seems to be didactic: These teachers want to make clear to their students that producing written language is communicative.By definition, writing is a social act, part of and contributing to an existing, complex universe of communicative acts. Furthermore, many teachers want to make their students more aware of the process (sometimes conceived as a sociocognitive process, sometimes as a group or organizational process) that to a certain extent determines the outcomes of writing efforts (Flower, 1989;Forman, 1992).

show abstract

A Research Synthesis on Effective Writing Instruction in Primary Education

Smedt

Keer

2014

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computers in writing instruction

Cited by 5 publications

References 20 publications

The joint negotiation of ground rules: establishing a shared collaborative practice with new educational technology

The joint negotiation of ground rules: establishing a shared collaborative practice with new educational technology

The computer as means of communication for peer-review groups

A Research Synthesis on Effective Writing Instruction in Primary Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About