Proposal view
| Proposal Type: | Individual Paper |
|---|---|
| Domain: | Knowledge Acquisition and Expertise in Specific Domains |
| SIG: | Writing |
| Type | Submitted Paper |
| Equipment |
PC and projector |
| Paper Details |
|---|
| Title | Observational learning and its effect on individual and dyadic revision quality |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Collaborative revision and writing is often advocated as an effective teaching method in writing education to help novice and inexpert writers to improve their revision and writing skills (MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991; Rouiller, 2004). However, research has also pointed out that to increase the probability of success, dyadic revision should be guided (MacArthur, Graham, Schwartz & Schaffer, 1995). One form of structured instructional strategy which has proven its effectiveness as far as learning-to-write and learning-to-revise is concerned is observational learning (Couzijn & Rijlaarsdam, 2005). In this paper we explore the effect of observational learning on dyadic revision in more detail. 250 EFL learners were assigned to two experimental conditions in which dyadic revision is the instructional method used to teach students how to revise a well-structured letter of application. In a first experimental condition students observed a ‘mastery model’ in which two expert revisors modeled how to revise a letter of application in English for contents and structure. In a second experimental condition two students learned how to revise a letter of application in a more traditional way i.e. by ‘doing it themselves’. Instead of observing two other students revise a letter of application for contents and structure they revised the same letter with a peer. To determine which instructional method is more effective, students’ revision skills were measured immediately after the experimental intervention either on the individual or on the dyadic level. Data were analysed using multilevel analyses. In addition to our main research question – namely, which instructional method is more effective as far as writing a well-structured letter of application is concerned - we also explored the interaction between the instructional method used and individual differences such as level of English, writing and reading ability and revision skills. |
| Summary | Collaborative revision and writing is often advocated as an effective teaching method in writing education, both in L1 and L2, to help novice and inexpert writers to improve their revision and writing skills (Daiute & Dalton, 1988; MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991; Nystrand, 1986; and Rouiller, 2004). However, research has also pointed out that to increase the probability of success, dyadic revision should be guided (MacArthur, Graham, Schwartz & Schaffer, 1995). One structured instructional strategy which has proven its effectiveness as far as learning-to-write and learning-to-revise is concerned is observational learning (Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, Van den Bergh et al, 2004; Couzijn, 2005). In most experimental studies on observational learning the models shown are individuals illustrating how they approach a cognitively complex writing or revision task. In this paper, we explore the complex interaction of observational learning and collaborative learning in more detail. We study the effect of observational learning on dyadic and individual revision. Participants in this experiment are first-year Belgian university students of Applied Economics attending a compulsory course on Business Writing. These 250 EFL students are assigned to two experimental conditions which are based on theories of observational learning and collaborative learning. In both conditions dyadic revision is the instructional method used to teach students how to revise and write a convincing and well-structured letter of application. In a first experimental condition students observe a ‘mastery model’ in which two expert revisers model how to revise a letter of application in English for contents and structure. In a second experimental condition students learn how to write and revise a letter of application in a more traditional way i.e. by ‘doing it themselves’. Instead of observing two other students revise a letter of application for contents and structure they revise the same letter with a peer. To determine which instructional method is more effective as far as learning-to-revise is concerned, students’ revision skills are measured. In both conditions students revise a letter immediately after the experimental intervention either in pairs or individually. That way we have designed an experiment with four experimental conditions: observational learning (condition 1: model dyad) on the individual (1a) and dyadic level (1b) and learning-by-doing (condition 2) individually (2a) and in pairs (2b). Analyses of data on the individual and dyadic level enable us to draw conclusions about the effect of observational learning on learning-to-revise individually or in pairs. To understand the complex nature of collaborative revision process data have also been collected using screen capture software and audio and video recordings. In the current paper, we answer two research questions. First, we comment on the differences between the two learning conditions and discuss which condition is more effective as far as learning-to-revise is concerned. To do this we present the results of quantitative multilevel analyses on revision products. Both learning conditions are compared as far as number and quality of the revisions on a structural and content level (so-called higher-order concerns) are concerned. We specifically focus on both quantity and quality of revisions since according to most studies on expertise in revision (Flower, Hayes, Schriver & Stratman, 1986; McCutchen, Kerr and Francis, 1994), more expert revisers revise significantly more and qualitatively better higher-order concerns. In addition to exploring our main research question we also explore the interaction between the instructional method used and individual differences such as level of English, writing and reading ability and revision skills. More specifically, we investigate to what degree poor learners (readers and writers) and good learners of English as a foreign language (proficient readers and writers) benefit from observational learning. Results indicate interactions between level of English and learning conditions: weak EFL learners profit most from observational learning, while strong EFL learners experience the observational learning condition in a different way. We interpret our findings in the light of previous research on modeling and theories of collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999) and discuss which of these theories is most informative for collaborative revision effectiveness research. References - Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Hout Wolters, B.A.M. (2004). Observational Learning and its effects on the orchestration of the writing process. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 1-36. - Couzijn, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2005). Learning to read and write argumentative text by observation of peer learners. In Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Couzijn, M. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing: A handbook of writing in education. (p. 241-258). Second Edition, Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. - Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1988). “Let’s brighten up a bit”: Collaboration and cognition in writing. In B. Rafoth and D. Rubin (Eds.), The Social construction of written communication. (p. 249-269), Norwood: NJ: Ablex. - Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative Learning. Cognitive and Computational Approaches in Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Oxford: Elsevier, 246p. - Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., Carey, L., Schriver, K. and Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, Diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37, 16-55. - MacArthur, C.A., Schwartz, S.S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201-210. - MacArthur, C.A., Schwartz, S.S., Graham, S., & Schaffer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction and word processing. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 278-291. - McCutchen, D., Kerr, S., and Francis, M. (1994). Editing and revising: Effects of knowledge of topic and error location. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Americal Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. - Nystrand, M. (1986). Learning to write by talking about writing: A summary of research on intensive peer review. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. (p. 179-211). Orlando: Academic Press. - Rouiller, Y. (2004). Collaborative Revision and metacognitive reflection in a situation of narrative text production. In Allal, L, Chanquoy, L. and Largy, P. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 13. Revision. Cognitive and Instructional Processes. (p. 171-187). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. |
| Keywords | Collaborative learning Instructional strategies Writing |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| Elke | Van Steendam | University of Antwerp | Belgium | elke.vansteendam@ua.ac.be | * | |
| Gert | Rijlaarsdam | University of Amsterdam | Netherlands | G.C.W.Rijlaarsdam@uva.nl | ||
| Lies | Sercu | Catholic University of Leuven | Belgium | lies.sercu@arts.kuleuven.be | ||
