Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay-writing processes?

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine whether a computer-supported learning environment enhances essay writing by providing an opportunity to share drafts with fellow students and receive feedback from a draft version. Data for this study were provided by 25 law students who were enrolled in a course in legal history at the University of Helsinki in February 2001. Both the students and the teacher were interviewed. The interviews showed that the students' experiences of the essay-writing process were very positive. The teacher's experiences were in line with the students'. The results showed that the students seemed to divide into two groups concerning their experiences towards sharing written drafts with peers: those who were very enthusiastic and enjoyed the possibility to share drafts and those who, on the other hand, felt that the idea of sharing unfinished essays was too threatening for them and required too much openness. The results further showed that the active use of a computersupported learning environment was related to good essay grades. IntroductionDuring recent decades, there has been a shift from product-oriented towards processoriented writing. The former focuses on students' written products rather than on the processes by which they produce them. Process-oriented instruction, on the other hand, aims at supporting students' writing process and in this way develops students' academic writing skills and improves the quality of their written products (Hayes and Flower, 1986;Tynjälä, 2001).

A Review of Recent Papers on Online Discussion in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

“…Twenty papers appeared in the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks: Anderson et al [3], Aviv [4], Aviv et al [7], Biesenbach-Lucas [8], Brown [5], Campos [9], Curtis and Lawson [10], Graddy [11], Koory [12], Kumari [13], Meyer [14], Morse [15], Oliver and Shaw [16], Parker and Gemino [17], Picciano [18], Ross et al [19], Shaw and Pieter [20], Spiceland and Hawkins [21], Vandergrift [22], and Yang and Tang [23]. Nine papers were published in the British Journal of Educational Technology: Angeli, Valanides, and Bonk [24], Carswell et al [25], Collings and Pearce [26], Cunningham-Atkins et al [27], Lindblom-Ylänne and Pihlajamäki [28], Macdonald and Twining [29], Murphy [30], Salmon [31], and Wearmouth et al [32]. Nine appeared in Computers and Education: Hubscher-Younger and Narayanan [33], Johnson et al [34], Kear [35], Light et al [36], MacDonald [37], Martinez et al [38], Mazzolini and Maddison [39], Tolmie and Boyle [40], and Wilson [41].…”

“…Not surprisingly, the major point of reference within the sampled literature was education theory and that of social constructivism in particular, e.g., Collings and Pearce [26], Hawkey [45], Kear [35], Lindblom-Ylänne and Pihlajamäki [28], Macdonald and Twining [29], Mackinnon [60], and Maor [60]. The term social constructivism was used in a broad way and implied social interaction and active "meaning making" by learners (e.g., Yang and Tang [23] and Angeli et al [24]) often derived from principles developed by Vygotsky [65].…”

Students’ Experiences of Autonomy, Competence, Social Relatedness and Interest Within a CSCL Environment in Vocational Education: The Case of Commerce and Business Administration

“…This focus is rather unexplored within the area of a CSCL context. Besides, it is important that students learn to share their process-and product-oriented experiences with their peers and learn to interpret feedback (Lindblom-Ylänne & Pihlajamaki, 2003). Feedback is, however, too often product-oriented and hardly focused on the ongoing learning process.…”

Learning through online discussion: A case of triangulation in research

“…Interviews have been employed in a large body of research into asynchronous online discussion (eg. Brown, 2001;Hammond, 1999;Jones & Asensio, 2001;Lindblom-Ylänne & Pihlajamäki, 2003;Miller & Ewing, 2000;van Weert & Pilot 2003). However, the use of interview data is less common than content analysis, perhaps due to obvious difficulties of access to distance learners.…”