Enhancing Writing-Related Metacognitions Through a Computerized Writing Partner

Zellermayer, Michal; Salomon, Gavriel; Globerson, Tamar; Givon, Hanna

doi:10.2307/1162945

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A review by Hillocks showed that writing instruction was more effective when it was specific, focused, and structured (Hillocks, 1984(Hillocks, , 1986). Thus, it was possible that more general writing instruction added to the word processor would differ little from word processing alone or word processing with voice recognition, as also claimed by several researchers in the past (Bangert-Drowns, 1993;Salomon & Perkins, 2005;Zellermayer, Salomon, Globerson, & Givon, 1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: a meta-analysis of research findings

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its advent word processing has become a common writing tool, providing potential advantages over writing by hand. Word processors permit easy revision, produce legible characters quickly, and may provide additional supports (e.g., spellcheckers, speech recognition). Such advantages should remedy common difficulties among weaker writers/readers in grades 1-12. Based on 27 studies with weaker writers, 20 of which were not considered in prior reviews, findings from this meta-analysis support this proposition. From 77 independent effects, the following average effects were greater than zero: writing quality (d = 0.52), length (d = 0.48), development/organization of text (d = 0.66), mechanical correctness (d = 0.61), motivation to write (d = 1.42), and preferring word processing over writing by hand (d = 0.64). Especially powerful writing quality effects were associated with word processing programs that provided text quality feedback or prompted planning, drafting, or revising (d = 1.46), although this observation was based on a limited number of studies (n = 3).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: a meta-analysis of research findings

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Writing Partner (Zellermayer et al, 1991) was designed to become a cognitive partner of children learning to write, as in physical distribution of cognition. This program supports meta-cognition about the writing process, so that the young writers can think with the Writing Partner during the process.…”

Section: Tool Specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing research on learning with technology: in search of the meaning of cognitive tools

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research and development with cognitive tools has been limited by an inadequate conceptualization of the complexity underlying their nature and affordances for supporting learning and performance. This paper provides a new perspective on cognitive tools through the lens of the theories of distributed cognition and expertise. The learner, tool, and activity form a joint learning system, and the expertise in the world should be reflected not only in the tool but also in the learning activity within which learners make use of the tool. This enhanced perspective is used to clarify the nature of cognitive tools and distinguish them from other types of computer tools used in learning contexts. We have classified cognitive tools considering how expertise is classified: domain-independent (general) cognitive tools, domain-generic cognitive tools, and domain-specific cognitive tools. The implications are presented in reference to research, development, and practice of cognitive tools. The capabilities of cognitive tools should be differentiated from those of the human, but regarded as part of the system of expertise. Cognitive tools should be accompanied by appropriate learning activities, and relevant learner performance should then be assessed in the context of tool use.

show abstract

“…The findings were correspondingly more persuasive: when the student subjects were experienced users, papers written on computer were rated higher (Owston, Murphy & Wideman 1992); when students with different writing abilities were observed, the effects of word processing interacted with individual student differences (Joram, Woodruff, Bryson & Lindsay 1992); when similar groups of student writers were compared, the group which received unsolicited metacognitive guidance from a specially designed computer tool wrote better essays (Zellermayer, Salomon, Globerson & Givon 1991).…”

Section: What We Have Learned From Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%