Abstract
One approach to assist writers in dealing with the problem of managing cognitive resources during writing is to scaffold writing by computer. Unfortunately, empirical research on computer-based writing scaffolds is quite limited. This study investigates to which extent computer-based scaffolds should be provided to support efficient prewriting. The writing environment scaffolds prewriting by instructing an adequate sequence of prewriting activities on consecutive file cards. Writers’ behaviour and performance were investigated in two versions of the writing environment (lean vs. enriched version). Writing performance was further analysed with respect to students’ writing strategies and motivation. The results indicate that particular motivational variables play an important role when prewriting is scaffolded by a computer. Implications of these results are discussed with regard to the restrictions and benefits of computer-based scaffolding of prewriting activities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bonk, C. J., & Reynolds, T. H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 8(1), 39-62.
Butcher, K. R., & Kintsch, W. (2001). Support of content and rhetorical processes of writing: Effects on the writing process and the written product. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 277-322.
Englert, C. S., Yong, Z., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N. Y., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(1), 9-29.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.
Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jucks, R. (2001). Was verstehen Laien? Die Verständlichkeit von Fachtexten aus der Sicht von Computer-Experten (What do laypersons understand? The comprehensibility of scientific texts out of experts’ perspective). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Kozma, R. B. (1991a). Computer-based writing tools and the cognitive needs of novice writers. Computers and Composition, 8(2), 31-45.
Kozma, R. B. (1991b). The impact of computer-based tools and embedded prompts on writing processes and products of novice and advanced college writers. Cognition and Instruction, 8(1), 1-27.
Lansman, M., Smith, J. B., & Weber, I. (1993). Using the writing environment to study writers’ strategies. Computers and Composition, 10(2), 71-92.
MacArthur, C. A. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 248-262). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Palumbo, D. B., & Prater, D. L. (1992). A comparison of computer-based prewriting strategies for basic ninth-grade writers. Computers in Human Behavior, 8(1), 63-70.
Piolat, A., & Blaye, A. (1991). Effects of word processing and writing aids on revision processes. In M. Carretero, M. L. Pope, P. R.-J. Simons & J. I. Pozo (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context, Vol. 3. (pp. 379-399). Elmsford: Pergamon Press.
Shapiro, A. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 29-44.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420-428.
Sturm, J. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2), 124-139.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39(2), 181-200.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Givon, H. (1991). Enhancing writing-related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 373-391.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Proske, A., Narciss, S. (2008). Supporting Prewriting Activities in Academic Writing by Computer-Based Scaffolds. In: Zumbach, J., Schwartz, N., Seufert, T., Kester, L. (eds) Beyond Knowledge: The Legacy of Competence. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8827-8_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8827-8_36
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8826-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8827-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)