Lotus ScreenCam as an Aid to Investigating Student Writing

Glendinning, Eric H.; Howard, Ron

doi:10.1076/call.16.1.31.15530

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The design parameters are based on the theoretical underpinnings of Collaborative Writing and Online Discussion as discussed in the Literature Review section. They are summarized as follows: (1) realizing the step-by-step nature of technical writing which is demanding for novice writers (Kelly 2003;Spring 1997); (2) realizing collaborative learning in peers (Carter et al 2003;Kelly 2003;Nagelhout 1999); (3) providing opportunities for students to engage in discipline-specific practices to develop effective strategies for exploration (Nagelhout 1999), such as creating team agendas and plans, team brainstorming, creating shared team outlines, and creating team articles; (4) supporting communication about comments to increase interaction between writers; (5) examining and managing the writing processes, so students can understand the act of technical writing (Glendinning and Howard 2003); (6) providing multi-user functionality to let multiple students work synchronously and help students feel comfortable in multi-task, multi-user environments (Nagelhout 1999); and (7) supporting collaborative parallel writing (Sharples et al 1993). …”

Section: Design Parameters and Research Questions Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion

Yeh

Huang

2011

Computer Supported Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the advent of computer technology, researchers and instructors are attempting to devise computer support for effective collaborative technical writing. In this study, a computer-supported environment for collaborative technical writing was developed. This system (Process-Writing Wizard) provides process-oriented scaffolds and a synchronous online chat room to facilitate real-time collaborative writing practice. It allows multiple students to work synchronously on collaborative writing tasks via the Internet. It also helps develop collaborative writing strategies, such as creating team agendas, brainstorming, creating team outlines, and generating team articles. An experiment was conducted to examine the effect of the system on EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students' collaborative writing experiences. First, an attitude questionnaire was used to evaluate learners' perceptions, acceptance, attitudes, and continuing motivation toward the functionalities and guidance provided by the system. Second, students' writing products were examined to evaluate the effect of the system on EFL students' collaborative writing quality, especially on content and organization. Finally, this study analyzed and coded students' synchronous chats with three categories (article-related interactions, social interactions, and system operation-related interactions) to evaluate the effect of the system on students' interactions. The results of the experiment showed: (1) the students had positive attitudes toward the system and continuing motivation to use the system in future writing tasks; (2) analysis of writing products suggested that students produced better content and organization with the support of the system; (3) the procedural facilitation provided by the system successfully scaffolded students to converse more in the category of article-related interactions. Limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Design Parameters and Research Questions Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion

Yeh

Huang

2011

Computer Supported Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The willingness of students to experiment with language structures in an exercise format that gave them an unfettered view of the task provides compelling evidence in support of the principle of hypothesis testing. Glendinning and Howard (2003) investigated the notion of metalinguistic reflection in an ESL writing exercise. Three groups of students (lower intermediate, intermediate, and advanced) of three students each collaboratively wrote a descriptive essay based on a visually presented story.…”

Section: Hypothesis Testing and Metalinguistic Reflectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do we Know what Students are Actually Doing? Monitoring Students' Behavior in CALL^†

Fischer

2007

Computer Assisted Language Learning

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Writing was another skill that attracted a wide range of technologies, ranging from online activities (e.g., Lee, 2005), corpora and concordancing (e.g., Chambers & O'Sullivan, 2004;Kaur & Hegelheimer, 2005), word processors (e.g., Biesenbach-Lucas & Weasenforth, 2001), online dictionaries (e.g., Kaur & Hegelheimer, 2005), and screen capture software (e.g., Glendinning & Howard, 2003). There were also examples of self-developed courseware applications such as the package created by Goodfellow, Lamy and Jones (2002), which provided automatic feedback for learners of French, and the translation commentary helper for Chinese learners of English, designed by Shei (2005).…”

Section: Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature

Stockwell

2007

ReCALL

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of technology in language teaching and learning has been the focus of a number of recent research review studies, including developments in technology and CALL research (Zhao, 2003), CALL as an academic discipline (Debski, 2003), ICT effectiveness (Felix, 2005), and subject characteristics in CALL research (Hubbard, 2005), to name a few. Such studies have contributed to clarifying how language learning technologies have been investigated, but questions remain regarding how these technologies have been used in achieving learning objectives. In other words, what technologies do CALL practitioners select for the teaching of a certain language skill or area such as listening, grammar or pronunciation? Are the decisions to use these technologies made on pedagogical grounds, or alternatively, are there other aspects that are more instrumental in influencing what is used in the language classroom? The purpose of this study is to review the literature to examine what technologies are used in the teaching of the language skills and areas. All empirical research articles appearing in four major English-language journals in the field of CALL (CALICO Journal, CALL, Language Learning & Technology, and ReCALL) from 2001 to 2005 were examined and the results collated to determine (1) what types of technologies are being used in the teaching of specific language skills and areas, (2) whether researchers had a clear idea in mind regarding their choice of technology or technologies in relation to their learning objectives, and (3) whether the researchers attempted to capitalise upon the features inherent in the technology or technologies as opposed to traditional, non-CALL means. The paper concludes with a discussion of the relationship between technology and pedagogical goals.

show abstract

Lotus ScreenCam as an Aid to Investigating Student Writing

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion

Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion

How do we Know what Students are Actually Doing? Monitoring Students' Behavior in CALL^†

A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Lotus ScreenCam as an Aid to Investigating Student Writing

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion

Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion

How do we Know what Students are Actually Doing? Monitoring Students' Behavior in CALL†

A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

How do we Know what Students are Actually Doing? Monitoring Students' Behavior in CALL^†