The effects of a theory‐based summary writing tool on students' summary writing

Abstract

This paper focuses on the design and evaluation of a theory‐based computer‐assisted summary writing learning environment called Summary Writing‐PAL (SW‐PAL). The SW‐PAL was developed based on four aspects: summarizing strategies, learning theories, prior knowledge, and cognitive load. A quasi‐experiment that involved 58 undergraduates majoring in Computer Science was conducted to examine the effectiveness of SW‐PAL in writing summaries. Two intact classes were selected with 28 and 30 students in control and experimental groups, respectively. The conventional teaching approach was employed in the control group, whereas the SW‐PAL was introduced to the experimental group. Pretest and posttest were administrated to both groups. The findings indicated that SW‐PAL improved students' summary writing performance. A significant variance was noted between intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load among students with varying levels of English proficiency in the experimental group, signifying that the SW‐PAL is more suitable for students with lower language proficiency.

Confronting the Challenges of Undergraduates’ Argumentation Writing in a “Learning How to Learn” Course

“…From our inspection of students’ journal entries, we identified substantive aspects of their summaries that were problematic: (a) how to document the source of the reading; (b) what counts as more or less important content to incorporate; (c) how much content to include; (d) how to synthesize text effectively; and (e) whether to record exact words or paraphrase content (Chew et al, 2019). For example, we were surprised to find that a number of undergraduates did not know what source information was critical.…”

ChatGPT Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses in English Writing and Their Implications

“…The teaching content is a pre-set "set" pattern, which leads to excessive single Content and detachment from the students' life situation of using English, and it is difficult for the students to connect the learning content with their personal experience except for mechanical memorization, from the viewpoint of teaching evaluation, the inefficient "lagging" evaluation is still dominant. From the point of view of teaching evaluation, inefficient "lagging" evaluation still occupies a dominant position, ignoring the cognitive development law that students' writing ability needs to be improved in the cycle of "feedback-revision-feedback-revision" [4][5].…”