Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht -- Printed in the Netherlands. Hypertext Adventures: Computer-assisted Teaching of. Technical Report Writing in Delft.
Instructional Science 21:139-153 (1992) © Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht - - Printed in the Netherlands
139
Hypertext Adventures: Computer-assisted Teaching of Technical Report Writing in Delft BAS A. ANDEWEG, ERIKA R. HOEKSTRA, JAAP C. DE JONG, SABINE KUNST Department o f Applied Linguistics, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Fax: (0)15-787105
A b s t r a c t . Technical engineers consider communication and writing skills to be among
the most difficult aspects of their profession. Communication courses, however, are expensive, because teaching takes place in tutorial groups in which students are given feedback regularly. A computer-assisted practical t h a t aims at diminishing the amount of effort of the lecturer while increasing the participation of the students through interactive and user-friendly courseware is described. The program is developed in the Knowledge Pro environment (MS-Windows 3). The program consists of three modules: 1) a product module which offers examples of 'ideal texts' and criteria for them; 2) a style module which offers information on stylistic aspects such as sentence complexity, use of examples, use of connectives, spelling etc.; 3) a process module, which offers a standard procedure for planning and outlining a technical report and an example, in the form of a (hyper)text adventure. Besides, the program offers individual advice to students who face problems during the writing process. In each module the student can opt for additional examples or exercises via buttons, menus and hypertext paths. The program has been written in the Dutch language.
INTRODUCTION A survey carried out in 1985 in the Netherlands amongst more t h a n 1600 e n g i n e e r s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s c o n s i d e r e d communication and writing skills to be among the most difficult aspects of their profession (Vonderen-van Staveren & Vaags, 1985). For m a n y years now the department of Applied Linguistics of Delft University of Technology has offered courses in oral and writing skills for professional purposes. Although the num be r of enthusiastic students who enrol for these courses has doubled over the past four years, the course 'technical report writing' has become an obligatory component in the curriculum of only four of the fourteen Delft engineering studies. For this there m ay be two reasons. First, as a result of an educational reform the period of academic study in The Netherlands has been reduced from six to four years. The position of the so-called non-technical subjects, and t h u s also of technical writing courses, has therefore become even more delicate. Secondly, communication courses are expensive, because teaching takes place in tutorial groups (practicals) in which students are given
140 Bas A. Andeweg, Erika R. Hoekstra, Jaap C. de Jong, Sabine Kunst feedback regularly. A practical usually extends over 7 sessions of two hours each. Group size varies from 18 to 25 students. Students spend approximately 40 hours per practical on preparation for and attendance at the lectures, whereas lecturers invest 67 hours, i.e. 2.5 hours per student. Most teaching time is spent on marking assignments (approx. 2 hours per student). Each student has to h a n d in seven long and several short assignments. A much less expensive version of the course 'technical report writing' consists of one lecture of two hours to a group varying in size between 200 and 400 students. This course requires the student to invest 5 hours, and the lecturer 32 hours (approximately 6 minutes per student). Again most teaching time is spent on marking assignments (written collectively by groups of six student). Although lectures and self-study are less expensive t h a n practicals, we have found them to be far less effective. That is why we started to design a computer-assisted practical that aims at reducing the amount of effort of the lecturer while maintaining or even increasing the participation of the students through interactive and user-friendly courseware. Our aim is to design a course in which the lecturer will have to spend approximately 35 minutes per student. This includes two lectures of 2 hours each to groups of 200-400 students, and marking one individual assignment per student. The student will have to spend approx. 24 hours on attending the lectures, working his way through the courseware and writing an individual report of 12 pages. The courseware will require the student to make 60-100 assignments on which he will be given feedback. The program allows the student to focus on those subjects that appear most relevant to him. We expect that the output of this way of teaching report writing will be somewhere in between that of the traditional practical and t h a t of the lecture course (see Table 1). The courseware program is being developed by a project group including two lecturers in technical writing, an educational technologist and a computer linguist/software developer. We will probably require some extra programming support. We expect the multi-disciplinarity of the group to be an important factor in the development of a practical program. Small Group
Lecture
Courseware
Sessions
7x2
1x 2
2x2
Exercises
7+
1
60 +
Student hours
40 hr
6 hr
24 hr
Teacher hrs./stud.
2 hr
1/10 hr
1/2 hr
+
?
+
Quality
Table 1. Differencesbetween courses ~rechnicalReport Writing'
Hypertext Adventures
141
In this p a p e r we p r e s e n t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of the courseware. First, we will deal w i t h t h e p r e l i m i n a r y phase. We c a r r i e d out a s u r v e y a m o n g o u r own s t u d e n t s to f m d out w h a t t h e i r opinions on the c u r r e n t courses w e r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , we g a t h e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n on a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g c o u r s e w a r e . We did not expect to find r e a d y - m a d e p r o g r a m s (especially in T h e N e t h e r l a n d s w h e r e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of w r i t i n g c o u r s e w a r e is still in its infancy) b u t we h o p e d to g e n e r a t e ideas a b o u t w h a t we would like to achieve. Secondly, we will give a n o v e r v i e w of t h e p r o g r a m , c o n c e n t r a t i n g on a few of its m o s t conspicuous qualities. Finally, we will dwell on some p r o b l e m s t h a t we expect m a y arise.
THE PRELIMINARY PHASE: A SEARCH FOR A BETTER WRITING COURSE
Student needs Although we s t a r t e d this courseware project for financial reasons - - less t i m e r e q u i r e d for teaching a n d c h e a p e r courses - - this w a s of course not o u r o n l y goal. B e t t e r w r i t i n g courses, m o r e a c t i v e a n d i n t e r a c t i v e e d u c a t i o n w e r e also i m p o r t a n t goals. We s t a r t e d w i t h a n a l y s i n g o u r own w r i t i n g course a n d d r e w u p a n extensive q u e s t i o n n a i r e to g e t a n idea about: • t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d n e e d s s t u d e n t s h a v e before t h e y e m b a r k on a w r i t i n g course; • t h e e x t e n t to which c u r r e n t courses m e e t the needs of the students; • t h e r e m a i n i n g needs of the s t u d e n t s a f t e r finishing t h e course. T h e r e w e r e 124 respondents. In the r e m a i n d e r of this discussion we will focus on those s t u d e n t s who said t h e y h a d m o d e r a t e to little experience in w r i t i n g (N=92, 75% of t h e t o t a l group), b e c a u s e t h i s g r o u p is t h e t a r g e t group for our courseware. To g a i n a n i n s i g h t into t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e s e s t u d e n t s t o w a r d s t h e i r o w n w r i t i n g skills a n d t o w a r d s courses w h i c h t e a c h t h i s skill, 92 s t u d e n t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a n u m b e r of s t a t e m e n t s on t h e s e two topics a n d w e r e a s k e d to s t a t e w h e t h e r t h e y a g r e e d w i t h t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s or not. The m o s t r e m a r k a b l e results are s h o w n in T a b l e 2. Statement
Agree
Disagree
I can mention exactly what problems I have with writing
38%
62%
Good writing needs a lot of exercise
92%
8%
Specific, small wdting exercises are important to learn how to write
81%
19%
Writing a whole report at once and getting it criticized afterwards is a good strategy to learn how to write
47%
53%
Table 2. Students' opinions (n = 92)
142 Bas A. Andeweg, Erika R. Hoekstra, Jaap C. de Jong, Sabine Kunst Furthermore, to get an insight into the opinion of the students about a possible content of the courseware a list of 53 topics was drawn up. Together these topics cover the complete content of the current writing course. The students were asked to indicate for each topic the weight of attention paid to it in the course (too little, enough, too much). This resulted in seven topics which, according to 50% or more of the target group, had been given too little attention: 1) writing in a controlled cyclic process, 2) defining the key question and the purpose statement, 3) m e n t i o n i n g t h e r e s e a r c h c o n s t r a i n t s , 4) l i n k i n g r e p o r t recommendations to report conclusions, 5) using signal words, 6) subdividing text into paragraphs and 7) avoiding difficult language. The above confirmed our idea to develop a courseware program t h a t covered all the aspects of the writing process and that contained a lot of short exercises - - about writing process and the product qualifications: the elements of the report. The consequences of this study for the userinterface design will be set out in the section 'user interface'. But before we focus on this point, we will first turn to already existing courseware. Existing courseware
We concentrated on existing courseware in order to explore positive and negative characteristics of educational software already created. We knew of several spelling-courseware and stylecheckers in use in The Netherlands. There are also a few programs for translating business letters (e.g. TRANSWORD), which incorporate simple idiom and grammar exercises (Heusinkveld, 1988). However, these programs are for general purposes and do not specifically aim at technical writing. Besides, they do not fit the needs and standards of technical writing at a university level. Although we faced the same problem in the Anglo-Saxon world we discovered three interesting systems dealing with at least some kind of writing: the teaching system Writing for Business and Effective Writing, and the support system Writer's Helper (Hoekstra, 1990). The difference between teaching and support systems is t h a t the latter lack a part in which specific learning material is presented. Support systems function more or less as an instrument to control texts. In the case of Writer's Helper you can prepare a text by selecting Prewriting Activities or check any written text on various general aspects by selecting Revising Tools. Undoubtedly, the strength of Writer's Helper lies in the ability to generate ideas and in the prewriting suggestions to find and explore a subject. Notice it has a very general application, although for English only. We would like to stress here t h a t we intend to design a Dutch system which aims at being both a teaching and a support system and which specifically focusses on writers of technical reports. Furthermore, we experienced t h a t teaching systems like Writing for Business and Effective Writing run the risk of becoming text-books on the screen, obliging the user to 'keep turning the pages'. It is desirable t h a t users can make decisions about routing - - especially the routing which fits their needs best - - and t h a t they can ask for (more) exercises or yet another example. In teaching systems another problem arises
Hypertext Adventures
143
wh en questions are asked. Having the answers controlled by the program is very difficult unless you put the question and answer in a predictable form, such as for instance in multiple choice. The so-called 'open' questions are less easy to control, and therefore often result in general feedback, which in the worst case means a literal repetition of the facts just learned (as in Effective Writing). In conclusion, we decided our system had to be both a teaching and a support system. We wanted to present learning material focussed on technical writing and at the same time we wanted the user to play an interactive role in the system from which it had to receive as much local support as possible. A program such as Writer's Helper offers a lot of ideas for incorporating interactive support-like events. The a m o u n t of CAP (computer-assisted page turning) had to be reduced by h y p e r t e x t and other choice-giving facilities such as menus, buttons and checklists. At any time, we thought, the user should be able to opt for exercises and ex tr a examples. By presenting contrasting good and bad examples throughout the program we believe t h a t users learn faster and write better if th ey do not only know what is right but also w hat is definitely wrong.
D E V E L O P I N G THE C O U R S E W A R E After this preliminary phase we had to make some i m port ant choices, concerning a) the user interface and b) the content and the structure of our program. User interface The first question in user interface design is: who is the user? The user of the writing courseware will be a student of the Delft University of Technology with no experience in working with this specific program and with writing experience t h a t varies from little to a lot. This implies t h a t the communication par t of the program m ust be user-friendly and t h a t the content m u s t be well-organized, in such a way t h a t the advanced writer does not have to undergo superfluous instruction. H y p e r t e x t seems to be a good facility to present the subject matter. Each s tu d ent passes through the so-called minimal story (this is the basic required learning material). This minimal story offers the student facilities to ask for more information, instruction, examples or exercises by means of menus and hyper t e xt paths (see Figure 1). In general the dialogue between user and program will be menu- or icon-driven. The user can navigate through the program by using the mouse, with the exception of those exercises which need open (keyboard) input. Two aspects of a hypertext application need special attention: " the risk of disorientation of the user; • the cognitive load on the user.
144 Bas A. Andeweg, Erika R. Hoekstra, Jaap C. de Jong, Sabine Kunst D i s o r i e n t a t i o n can be caused b y t h e two s t r u c t u r e s in the p r o g r a m : the h i e r a r c h i c a l m e n u s t r u c t u r e , w h i c h is a t r e e s t r u c t u r e , a n d t h e m o r e c o m p l e x h y p e r t e x t n e t w o r k s t r u c t u r e . I t is e s s e n t i a l for the u s e r to know, a t e v e r y m o m e n t in t h e p r o g r a m , where he is a n d how/why he got there. A consistent use of the window facilities a n d the use of briefly p h r a s e d p l a c e i n d i c a t i o n s in t h e c o u r s e w a r e will be a g r e a t a n d essential s u p p o r t to the user. In order to m i n i m i s e the cognitive load it is useful to provide the u s e r w i t h some guidance t h r o u g h the p r o g r a m . In the w r i t i n g c o u r s e w a r e we h a v e allowed for: • t h e possibility to p a s s t h r o u g h t h e c o u r s e w a r e in a linear, g u i d e d way;• a well-organized m e n u s t r u c t u r e from which the u s e r c a n choose the subjects of his i n t e r e s t directly; • t h e p o s s i b i l i t y to choose for s e p a r a t e i n s t r u c t i o n , e x a m p l e s or exercises or for a combination of the three.
MINIMAL STORY INTRODUCTION ]
EXAMPLES
I EXERCISES I HYPER ]
MODULE1I
__MODULE2~MODULE3
MENU:
HYPER:
TEXT
Figure 1. Program structure
Hypertext Adventures
145
We have chosen to develop the courseware materials in the Knowledge Pro Windows environment for three reasons. First, we expect students to be already familiar with the user-interface of MS-Windows, and therefore to have little difficulty with handling the program. Secondly, Knowledge Pro offers fruitful hypertext and (limited) artificial intelligence options. Finally, the program requires no specialized programming skills of the courseware designer. Most of the intricacies of Windows programming, for example making windows, use buttons, and checklists, are easily handled by the program itself. The courseware designer can really focus on the essentials (see Appendix 1). The next choices we had to make concerned the content and structure of the program. We have chosen to develop three modules: a product, style and process module (see Figure 2).
Start Courseware Writing a Technical Report
Introduction
Initial Test
Module
I:
Module
The separate parts of a Report (from introduction to conclusions and appendices) Examples
I1:
Characteristics of the Writing Process
Brainstorm methodes
Exercises
Problem solving
III:
Module S~te
HELP
(cerrectTless, lay-out, sb'ucture, etc.) Examples
Final Test
Exercises
]__
Figure 2. Overview of the courseware The Product Module The product module deals with the standard components of the report: from the front matter (preface, table of contents and summary) via the body of the report (introduction, chapters, conclusions, recommendations) to the back matter (bibliography, appendices, index).
146 Bas A~ Andeweg, Erika R. Hoekstra, Jaap C. de Jong, Sabine Kunst T h i s m o d u l e contains guidelines, p r o p e r e x a m p l e s , a n d some classic m i s t a k e s . T h e r e a r e also s h o r t exercises w h i c h a i m a t r e c o g n i z i n g m i s t a k e s a n d r e v i s i n g t h e m . F o r example, our s t u d e n t s h a v e a lot of t r o u b l e w i t h w r i t i n g a n effective introduction. T h e two m a i n p r o b l e m s a p p e a r to be: • w h a t e l e m e n t s do you need in a n introduction? • w h a t is a good a n d effective p u r p o s e s t a t e m e n t ? T h e product module s t a r t s w i t h a m e n u , including all c o m p o n e n t s of the report. T h e s t u d e n t selects 'The introduction'. After a n o p e n i n g screen t h a t concerns the introduction, a m e n u follows w i t h two a l t e r n a t i v e s : ' e l e m e n t s of t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n ' a n d ' e l e m e n t s t h a t d o n ' t fit into t h e introduction' (see Figure 3).
ELEMENTS OF THE INTRODUCTION [ ] 1, Give background information: state the problem [ ] 2. Formulate the precise key question [ ] 3. Describe the significance of the subject for the reader [ ] 4. Define the subject: give limiting conditions [ ] 5. Present the method shortly [ ] S. Outline the structure of the report ELEMENTS that 130 NOT FIT the INTRODUCTION • References to the educational framework of the repod: in the preface. • Acknowledgements to supervisors etc.: In the preface. • Elements of uncertainty: avoid them. Make a choice [1 to 6] using the mouse and press I
~
Figure 3. 'Elements of the Introduction'
The student selects 2. Formulate the precise key question. Advice on how to f o r m u l a t e a k e y q u e s t i o n is p r e s e n t e d h e r e as well as options to c o n t i n u e . T h e s t u d e n t m a y , for i n s t a n c e , choose classic m i s t a k e s . F i g u r e 4 shows the n e x t screen.
Hypertext Adventures
Introduction 2/4 Introduction - key question
147
111" 1/1
2. FORMULATE THE PRECISE KEY QUESTION The key question is the most important part of the introduction. It presents the purpose of the report. It i~ the precisely formulated question to which the entire report is the answer. Example: Which of the three forms ot Telcstudy has the best educational results at University level? Or without the question form: The purpose of this report is to determine which of the three forms of ]-~lcstudy has the best educational results at University level.
Ic,.-io ,o,okoo I Mistake 1 The key question is hidden in the rex1. Mistake 2 The key question is not formulated precisely enough. ÷1 ~i!i!!Mislakv3 The key question contains difficult r e f e r e n c e s . .~
Figure 4. 'Classic mistakes' When the student has selected mistQke 2, an example of t h a t mistake appears on the screen. It is explained why the key question is imprecise; subsequently, a revised version of the key question is shown. When the student wants to practise writing key questions he selects 'exercises'. Figure 5 shows the first exercise about key questions. When the student has typed an answer - - for instance 'a proposal for' or 'a design of'- feedback follows and there is an opportunity to select a new item. The product module consists of approximately 15 items with about 200 small and larger examples and 65 small exercises in total.
T h e Style M o d u l e The learning material in this module is motivated by the survey already m e n t i o n e d and our observations of m i st akes f r e q u e n t l y made by students during the present courses. This resulted in the following table of contents: • • • • • •
Structure Clarity Conciseness Attractiveness Correctness Lay-out and visuals
'Structure' contains topics such as writing paragraphs and the use of headings at a super-sentence level. At sentence level complexity and length of sentences are discussed, amongst other things. The other items may speak for themselves.
148 Bas A. Andeweg, Erika R. Hoekstra, Jaap C. de Jong, Sabine Kunst
Introduction - key question
t/1
'~11~l'fl"l'l
~XERCISE 1. Look al the following
key que~lJofl:
This report describes a systemof Tcfcstody that could be introduced to the Facully of Mechanical Engineering. ;OMMENT: The word DESCRIBES in this key question - w h i c h Is nut stated In the form of a q u e s t i o n - is tricky. In its a m b i g u i t y It suggests that there will be delivered a report of an EXISTING system. B u t In fact we are dealing with a new s y s t e m . H o w can y o u rewrite this k e y question so that It is not misleading? Complete the sentence In the edit window. Use the mouse to click on the dots. Then use the keybord. Press OKwhen finished.
This report contains .... a s y s t e m of T c l c o t u d y that could he Introduced to the laculty of Mechanical Engineering ;;i ; = ! i ;
;;=ii=:;iiii~i~iii~i
[] Figure 5. 'Exercises' Let's look at a typical stylistic phenomenon in Dutch, t h a t can be compared to the English split infinitive, the so-called 'tang-constructie'. This construction causes the sentence complexity to increase. 'Tang' means (pair of) tongs. This type of construction appears in Dutch (which has a more flexible word order t h a n English) when two words t h a t together form a noun or a verb phrase - - for instance an article and a noun or an auxiliary verb and a participle - - are separated by another clause or constituent. Het door de slimme jongens voorspelde onweer (barstte los). [ Th e by the s m ar t boys forecast t h u n d e r and lightning (burst out) ]. The first u n d e r l i n e d word is the article belonging to the second underlined word, a noun. In b e t w e e n t h e r e is an adjectival const i t uent . A l t hough this construction is not grammatically wrong in Dutch, it is not considered stylistically elegant either. The bigger the distance between the 'legs' of the tongs the more difficult it is to interpret the sentence. After the courseware has presented basic information about different types of'tang-constructies', students can opt for specific examples per type or for overall-exercises. These consist of recognizing, avoiding and rew ri t i ng any 'tangconstructie'. The solution is usually to bring the disconnected words together, which in this particular case causes the adjectival constituent to be converted into a relative clause. In English this would be like 'The t h u n d e r and lightning [which was] forecast by the smart boys burst out'.
Hypertext Adventures
149
Figure 6 shows an example of a basic screen from the 'tangconstructie' partition. The first hypertext phrase has been opted for and the information is shown in the smaller window.
Tangconstrudies You must be aware of three different tang-constructles, depending on hc type of constituents that constitute the compound parts: I. Nominal Tano-constroctic .>, Verbal Tano-constructie 3. Coniunctian-verb Tan_o-constructie
1. If it is the case that an article and a noun are separated from eachother b y another constituent, we do speak of a nominal tang. For example: I-iET door de s l i m m e j o n g o n s v a n bet KNMI voorspeide ONWEEI~ barste los.
Figure 6. ~angconstructies' T h e Writing P r o c e s s M o d u l e In order to learn to write well it is not enough to know the structure of a research report or to know how a paragraph should be formed. Good and proficient writing needs a certain strategy - - a special way of working. We are trying to establish this in the third module. This module consists of two parts. The first part presents a standard writing procedure for planning and outlining a technical report for the management. In this part the students follow the long and winding story (a sort of case history) of writing a problem solving report on the topic of Sick Building Syndrome, departing from a vaguely described assignment to a wellwritten technical report. In some respect the courseware resembles here a computer-based Adventure game. The hero writer has to choose his resources from a list of options, and has to decide what to do next, while the program confronts him with the changing environment. In Appendix 2, part A, a fragment of the planning of the writing assignment is presented. It is the beginning of the so-called standard writing process. In Appendix 2, part B a graphical display of a small part of the adventure is presented. Here the writer has arrived at the point where he has to analyze the assignment problem within the constraints of the environment. For example, the report has to be aimed at a specific m a n a g e m e n t group and has to be delivered within ten days. The writer has to choose his tasks wisely, otherwise he will never reach his goals. In this specific example his time will run out when he is too ambitious. The result will
150 Bas A. Andeweg, Erika R. Hoekstra, Jaap C. de Jong, Sabine Kunst be t h a t he will get into trouble with his boss. In the classic text adventures this would have meant his death. Of course the case is not as complex as reality itself, but we are trying to make the false paths longer than one or two unproductive decisions. It must be made clear to the student what the results would be if steps are taken too quickly. The second part of this module, the writing consultant, offers individual advice to students who face problems during the writing process. It helps students to organize their texts, taking account of context elements such as situation, audience and writing aim (Mathes & Stevenson, 1976). This bears some resemblance to Writer's Helper, the program mentioned above. To incorporate the ideas of Peter Elbow (1981) about stimulating creativity, the rhetorical planning strategies of Linda Flower (1981) and ideas from new brainstorming software into our program is really going to be a compelling challenge. The use of metaphoric associations and guided questioning of a topic while keeping a chosen audience in mind seems a productive way of helping a writer suffering from a writer's block. In this way we expect t h a t the limited AI-capabilities of Knowledge Pro will be put to the test. If, for example, a writer does not know how to start or to go on, the program will ask questions to illuminate the problem. Most writers' problems are vaguely defined problems. Their cause will differ as a result of the specific stage of writing according to the standard writing process, the writing task and probably as a result of some personality features of the writer. By analyzing the problem the program will present effective strategies to cope with the (re)formulated problem. Finally, we will incorporate a r u d i m e n t a r y stylechecker, such as Writers Helper, to help the student writer to signal possible problems with his text (sentence length, excessive use of 'to be' verbs, use of overly formal or archaic language). The development of this third module is still in its initial stage and m a y possibly prove to be too complex to realize within the constraints of our project.
CONCLUSIONS The courseware program will be completed by the end of 1991. Arrangements have already been made with the faculty of Civil Engineering to use the courseware within their compulsory course on project development for first-year students. Although the development of the courseware itself, as said, is not without problems, we face two additional practical problems. The first concerns the installed base of university PC hardware of XT-configurations. Our program needs a faster AT286 or AT386SX type of machine. We have decided to continue to develop u n d e r MS-Windows 3.0, because we expect t h a t the hardware development will catch up with us by the end of the year. We feel strengthened in our choice by decisions of the Dutch government to choose the AT286 and Windows as the standard for primary, secondary and high school projects.
Hypertext Adventures
151
The second problem is of a didactic nature. Our program will allow the student a fair amount of freedom to follow, or not, the cleverly built hypertext paths of the program. In other words, how will we check how much effort a student has put into the course, and how much he has learnt from it. In our present educational setting we put pressure on students by means of obligatory exercises. In this way we accomplish that each student spends at least a minimum amount of time on the course. In the new setting the student will have more responsibility for his own achievements. Therefore, our computer-assisted writing course will include a final assignment: writing a report that has to show evidence of the criteria formulated and explained in the courseware. We hope that using hypertext and text adventures will stimulate the student to spend time on playing and developing the complicated skill of writing technical reports. REFERENCES
Effective Writing (1986) Developed and printed by Quay Software Limited, Lymington. Elbow, P. (1981) Writing with Power. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Flower, L. (1981) Problem-solving Strategies for Writing. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York. Hoekstra, E. (1990) 'Driemaal Courseware over Schrijven: Hoe u uw Schrijftalenten via Computergestuurde Lessen Kunt Ontwikkelen' InterCommunicatief3, 5, p.8-11. ['Three Courseware Programs on Writing: Developing your Talents by Computer-assisted Training'] Heusinkveld, H.W.(1988) 'De Computer en (Bedrijfs)Correspondentie in de Moderne Talen' Levende Talen 436, p.670-675. Mathes, J.C. & D.W. Stevenson (1976) Designing Technical Reports. Bobbs-MeriU Educational Publishing, Indianapolis. Vonderen-van Staveren, M.L. van, en D.W. Vaags (1985) 'Ingenieurs H i k k e n aan Tegen Niet-technische Taken' De Ingenieur, 11. ['Engineers Boggle at Non-technical Tasks7 Watt, Susan (1987) Writing for Business, a Computer-based Program. Version 1 (developed and written by S u s a n Watt). Printed at Sheridan College, Canada Wresch, William (1989) Writer's Helper Stage H, Published by CONDUIT, Iowa.
152 Bas A. Andeweg, Erika R. Hoekstra, Jaap C. de Jong, Sabine Kunst APPENDIX 1 Example of programming screen objects in Knowledge Pro Windows
:xarr ~le:Window File
Examples
Exercises
KNOWL.EDGEPRO Windows) LETS YOU COMMUNICATE KNOWLEDGE USING: Hvpertext
¢%
[ ] check 1
Hypergraphics
[ ] check 2 [ ] check 3
Scroll bar
d~
O radio button 1 O radio button 3
edit line
edit box
Fist box
selection 1 selection Z
~
I~1
Example program text [programming screen objects] window ((* event Topic*), 3, 2, 88.57,21.12, 'Example Window',). menu ([Ffle, Examples, Exercises]). text (' KNOWLEDGEPRO (Windows) LETS YOU COMMUNICATE KNOWLEDGE USING:
#mHypertext#m
edit line
Hypergraphlcs
edit box
Scroll bar list box
'). button ('button', (* eventTopic *), 6.285,4,5,9). checkbox ('check 1', (* eventTople *), 6, 7.562). radio_button ([['radio button 1', '6.142', '13'], ['radio button 2', '6.142', '14.5' [ratio breton 3', '6.142', '16']], (* eventTopic *)). edk line ('text', (* evemTopic *), 69, 4.5,12). edit_box ('text', (* eventTopic *), 69.14, 6.875,12, 5). list_box (['selec6on 1', 'selection 2', 'selection Y, 'selection 4', 'selection 5', 'selection 6'], (* eventTopie *), 69.14,13.31,14,4). horz_scroll-bar ((* ¢ventTopic *), 40,10.06,15,1, 0,100), button COke', (* eventTopic *), 40,16,56m 6). check box ('check 2', (* eventTopie *), 6, 9.062). check_box ('check 3', (* eventTopie *), 6.142,10.56). flower is load icon ('kpwindco'). icon (?flower, 45, 6). showwindow 0.
Hypertext Adventures APPENDIX
153
2
Standard research & writing procedure overview planning phase)
P a r t A:
/
........
gettingthe assignment
makinga r~gh plan
worklngQut the keyquestion
problem or the key question
l Presentinga t research plaaand the outlineofthe report to the superior
~
slr~turing the planned report matter
(
makingan outline
± [ to be continued]
P A R T B:
Fragment Case Sick Building Syndrome 1. make Inventoryof complalnls 2. Investigate~u~eJ
problem of key question
all tasksare ¢b~en
2 tasksare
~
t,sk1~, chosen
~
r unnlngout
.
~
~s
workingo u t the key question ~ 1 .
make questionnaire 2. InlerpretresuIts
.
.....
limeIs
r~n~.Eoot
