Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
Implementing an open process approach to a multilingual online writing center The case of Calliope Liesbeth Opdenacker ∗ , Luuk Van Waes Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Abstract This paper briefly describes the main characteristics of Calliope, a Belgian online writing center. Calliope began with the collaborative development of a theoretical framework based on a process approach to writing with a recognition of differences in learning and writing profiles. In this paper, we describe our theoretical framework, how it was developed, and how it is used in our classes (blended learning). Starting from a description of the content model, we also describe three key components of the multilingual online writing center: (a) the Feedback Editor, (b) the collaborative writing environment, Escribamos, and (c) the e-portfolio tool. We conclude the paper with a discussion on technical and content-related problems we encountered during Calliope’s development process. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Online writing center; Online writing lab; Learning styles; Writing styles; Blended learning
1. Characteristics and context In November 2001, the faculty of Applied Economics at the University of Antwerp (Belgium) started the Calliope () project. Calliope, The Muse of Writers, is now an online writing center where students can train their professional writing skills. Although writing centers are becoming increasingly popular in Europe, there are still very few online writing centers up and running to support writing curricula at universities.1 The long tradition of several American writing centers (e.g., Purdue University or Colorado State University; see Palmquist [2006] for an overview) inspired most of the centers that were developed. However, since the European educational context—and especially the role of writing in the academic curricula—is so different from that in the United States, U.S. concepts for writing centers cannot be simply copied. ∗
Corresponding author. Email addresses:
[email protected] (L. Opdenacker),
[email protected] (L. Van Waes). 1 See the European Writing Centers Association (EWCA, ), an affiliate of the International Writing Centers Association (IWCA). 8755-4615/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.05.003
248
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
In her keynote address at the 2001 EATAW conference, Professor Olga Dysthe from the University of Bergen (Norway) argued that the “late specialization” of the American educational system, where students choose a major only in the third year of study, causes a focus on more general tasks and thus results in a more rhetorical approach to writing. European education, on the other hand, is characterized by “early specialization.” This causes a bigger emphasis on a writing-across-the-curriculum or a writing-in-the-disciplines approach (Dysthe, 2001). We think that this can partly explain the differences in writing tradition and pedagogy between U.S. and European institutions. But of course, one should also take into account that there is also a large diversity in educational approaches to writing within Europe itself, especially between the north and the south of Europe. For instance, the relation between the teaching of literature and writing pedagogy is much closer in countries like France and Spain in comparison to what happens in most Scandinavian countries where writing and (applied) linguistics are more interrelated. We will now present a short overview of a few important aspects of the context in which our writing center at the University of Antwerp was developed. Due to the specific linguistic characteristics of Belgium (three official languages: Dutch, French, and German) and the importance of the international trade for the world harbor in Antwerp, the Faculty of Applied Economics has always attached a great deal of importance to business communication, both in Dutch and in foreign languages. Mastering different languages is considered to be an important asset for future marketers and business people. Therefore, Calliope was designed as a multilingual environment (Dutch, English, French, German, and Spanish) that focuses on business, academic, and technical writing. Our courses use the “teaching-for-specific-purposes” approach: Next to grammar classes and linguistics, students learn to master communicative management skills, such as how to write business letters and reports, how to compose meeting minutes, how to conduct job interviews, and so on (for an overview, see Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; Johns & PriceMachada, 2001). Taking this specific context into consideration, we developed a new theoretical framework, based on a constructivist pedagogical approach, aimed at supporting both different learning profiles and writing processes (see sections 4 and 5). Crucially, Calliope is not designed to replace traditional seminars and classes. Instead, it has been conceived as a complementary instrument to optimize learning. We use the so-called “blended learning” concept (see Bersin, 2004; Fernando, Lopez, Manrique, & Vines, 2005; Masie, 2005; Rossett, 2002). The idea behind it is that more complex tasks that benefit more from face-to-face open discussions in larger groups will be dealt with in the class environment. The part of the learning in which more personal communication skills are dealt with, however, can be transferred to the writing center.
2. Blended learning As mentioned above, Calliope is designed in such a way that we try to create a pedagogical environment in which we strike an optimal equilibrium between individual learning paths set out in the online writing center and face-to-face group interaction in regular business
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
249
Fig. 1. Screenshot of the Calliope online writing center, Dutch module on press releases.
communication classes. For a functional integration of the online writing center in our classes, we draw on the concept of blended learning. For example, we offer the course, Strategic Business & Management Communication (Dutch – 6 ECTS), which is taught by faculty in Applied Economics, to third-year students. From October to January, we meet with the students for about 4 hours a week in class, they use Calliope for specific assignments, and they meet with their peers either face-to-face or online using the Calliope computer-assisted writing tools and the BlackBoard environment. Each year, we focus on a number of specific genres of business communication (e.g., press releases, project progress reports, meeting minutes, etc.). For some of these genres, we combine traditional seminars with the use of online modules in Calliope. A module is a combination of theory, practice, and a case on a specific business communication topic. Calliope’s interface concept is based on an identical interactive structure for each module (see Figure 1). It consists of four components that are functionally linked to each other at different levels: (1) a general introduction including the module’s structure and objectives, (2) a theoretical part in which theory and research related to a specific text genre is summarized, (3) exercises to give the students the opportunity to practice certain concepts or to evaluate their prior knowledge, and (4) an elaborate case in which information and possible strategies are discussed stepwise. The left-hand frame is always used to represent the substructure of a component; in the right-hand frame we provide links that refer either to related themes in other (sub)components or to additional materials (examples, literature, etc.). The goal of this semi-open structure is to allow students to go through a learning process that corresponds to their preferred learning profile, offering two possible approaches: a subskill-oriented approach (theory and practice) and a case-oriented approach (see Figure 2 and also section 4 for a more elaborate discussion).
250
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
Fig. 2. Outline of the Calliope environment: subskills approach vs. case-oriented approach.
At the beginning of the course, students fill in two learning styles questionnaires based on the taxonomy of Jan Vermunt and Frank Van Rijswijck (1987) and David Kolb (1984). We don’t use these questionnaires to automatically adapt the learning environment to each specific user but to make students aware of the existence of learning styles. The majority of students expect strict instructions on how to solve a task. We want to show them that various paths can lead to the same outcome and that Calliope is an environment that allows them to experiment with different styles of learning. It is our aim to make them more aware of their own learning profile and to encourage them to actively reflect on their personal preferences when acquiring new knowledge about a genre. Figure 2 shows an outline of the Calliope environment. Each square represents a page and each letter represents a different topic. The module on press releases contains information on, for example, headlines, leads, boilerplates, and so on. Squares with the same letters, such as A and C, represent identical topics under different tabs, for example, a theoretical page on the lead and a corresponding exercise on writing a lead. These pages are always connected by hyperlinks. Whereas the exercises in the “Practice” component focus on a specific subskill, cases deals with a larger communicative problem that has been divided in different steps. Each step has to be dealt with while solving the case, but the sequence of the steps is not fixed. Again, pages are linked to other relevant pages in theory and practice so students can fine tune the skills needed to finish a certain task. This enables them to start with cases without having to look at theories first. Contrary to the exercises under practice, we don’t offer annotated solutions in cases. The scenario represented in Figure 3 outlines the process that students go through while working though the module on press releases. This scenario is flexible and can be adapted to suit the learning objectives of each specific module.
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
251
Fig. 3. Blended learning workflow for the module on press releases.
At the end of the seminar in week 3, the students get the following assignment: Go to the module on press releases in the Calliope web site, and solve the case. In this specific case, the students are presented with some facts about problems at the cellular phone producer, Giga. The first part of the assignment is to write a press release about the events, upload this press release to their Blackboard portfolio, and send an email to their team members2 with a request to give feedback. To give feedback, the team members open the assignments of their peers in the Feedback Editor (see section 3.1). The Feedback Editor allows the reviewers to add comments, remarks, and preformulated advice that the writer can use to revise his first draft. The revised draft is handed in a few days before the next seminar using the Blackboard assignment upload. The teacher then makes a selection of one or two texts that will be discussed during the next seminar.3 Since the basic concepts of press releases are dealt with in the Calliope environment, there is more time available in the seminar for discussion and additional in-depth 2 At the beginning of the course, the students are divided in teams of four to five persons. Each team member has access to the portfolio of the other members in the group, and they can easily communicate with each other (e.g., collaborative environment, discussion lists, group forums). 3 When students work on a Calliope assignment, one seminar is cancelled. In general, students need about 4–6 hours to read the theory and complete the case.
252
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
handling of specific subjects. On the basis of the additional feedback they receive in class, the students write a final revision plan that results in the last changes to their draft. In the seminar, the second part of the case assignment is introduced. Students have to write another press release, this time as a team. They can use the Escribamos writing environment (see section 3.2). This press release is also uploaded to the Blackboard portfolio but is not discussed in the seminar any more. The last part of the assignment is to write a text in which they reflect on the writing product as well as on the writing process. They also evaluate each others’ contribution to the final product. At the end of the writing process, each team member’s portfolio will contain the following documents: • Press release 1: first draft, peer feedback, revised version, revision plan, final draft. • Press release 2: collaborative version. • Reflection on product, process, and collaboration. At the end of the course, the teacher will review different aspects of all portfolios and mark them using a checklist.
3. Integrated writing environment Characteristic of our pedagogical approach to Calliope is that students are naturally forced into an episodic and recursive approach to writing. They create a first draft of a text (either alone or collaboratively), they have to provide peer feedback to their colleagues’ intermediate drafts, and they write their final drafts drawing on the feedback they received both in written form and during the face-to-face meetings. On top of this, for pedagogical and evaluative reasons, they have to document their writing processes in a digital portfolio. In order to facilitate these writing cycles in Calliope, we are integrating different writing tools into one writing environment. Thanks to this functional integration, we will avoid writers becoming distracted by accessing multiple programs (text editor, e-mail, collaborative platform, feedback database, etc.). Three such tools serve to (a) give and receive feedback, (b) communicate in a collaborative project, and (c) create digital portfolios. 3.1. Feedback Editor The Feedback Editor is a Web-based application4 that supports giving and receiving feedback on written products in different stages of the writing process. The application allows for extensive and easy reviewing by both peers and tutors (see Figure 4). Among European students, Microsoft Word is by far the most widely used text editor. Unfortunately, the current version of Microsoft Word does not have an extensive centralized review system. When a writer uses the “track changes” and “comments” functions, the text 4
The Feedback Editor was a joint effort of the universities of Antwerp and Nijmegen, Stroomt Consulting, and Pieter Bonne and Tom Germeau of the Higher Institute in Antwerp, and was funded by the Minerva program of the European Commission.
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
253
Fig. 4. Feedback Editor, with an overview of all open and structured feedback, filtered on the TextPert category, “contents.”
easily becomes cluttered. Ideally, the writer should be able to filter out these comments and revisions in order to focus upon specific aspects of the writing, such as structure, consistency, content, and spelling. The Feedback Editor in Calliope enables the writer to do this. In addition, it allows reviewers, such as teachers and peers, to access a database of preformulated standard comments that can be applied to specific writing problems. Also, the Feedback Editor features built-in support for easy communication between writers and reviewers. Extensive research of existing software, for instance Markin and Focus, has shown that no reasonably priced off-the-shelf product provides a solution for our specific educational requirements. First, many existing educational tools cannot be smoothly integrated with Microsoft Word. This would force writers and reviewers to open various applications simultaneously and copy and paste back and forth, probably losing text formatting along the way, which has a serious impact on the writing and reviewing process. Second, feedback software must operate across platforms to interact with various administration software and different learning environments (e.g., BlackBoard and WebCT). This capability is important because universities and institutions often change or upgrade software programs, which sometimes become obsolete. Therefore, the Feedback Editor had to be developed as a modular tool, one that can be taken out of an existing environment and re-installed in a new one. We felt that a good Feedback Editor should allow the following: • • • •
easy uploading of the text (Word or html) to be annotated; preservation of text formatting; creating a space for general written feedback (about the whole text); posting open comments (personal opinion) and linking them to specific sections of a text (word, clause, sentence or paragraph);
254
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
• selecting standard comments from a database and linking them to specific sections of the text (word, clause, sentence or paragraph); • adding remarks to a standard comment in order to make the comment more specific; • printing the comments in a user-friendly view; • filtering comments both on reviewers’ and categorical characteristics (e.g. only comments of a certain tutor and not those of the peers; only comments about structure). From the perspective of the writer, who has to review the text on the basis of this feedback, the comments should be organized in such a way where they can be easily accessed and visualized for rewriting purposes. Flexible interaction with feedback is crucial in the reviewing process. The Feedback Editor provides a collection of standard feedback texts, which are contained in a database. The main content of the database is formed by the texts that are now available in TextPert, developed by the University of Nijmegen. TextPert is a multilingual collection of predefined feedback texts about different quality aspects of textual communication, developed to guide students and tutors through the feedback process. Students often encounter problems when reviewing a fellow student’s document. The problem isn’t so much locating the problem in the text as diagnosing and labelling it properly. The old TextPert database was improved by shortening the standard texts and adding a new multi-layered labelling system. These changes limit the number of hierarchical levels and categories by combining different perspectives in the categorisation and allow the students to easily navigate the information. Students should be able to quickly select feedback criteria from different perspectives using a user-friendly interface (maximum of two/three levels; task and writer controlled). Criteria can refer to classical text characteristics (spelling, structure, etc.); quality criteria (acceptance, appreciation, etc.); genre-related elements; process-related characteristics (planning, formulating, revising). It is also important that users can create a self-defined feedback comment (e.g., with self-created open feedback or open questions). On top of that, an open search on keywords should also be possible. This multiple focus makes it possible to access the same standard feedback text from different perspectives. It should also be possible for a tutor to select different databases (e.g., different languages) and to adapt or supplement the database to a specific task and add, for instance, feedback that is related to a specific case or genre. After the reviewing process is finished, the writer can access all the reviewers’ comments. The Feedback Editor enables the writer to organise and/or filter the feedback in different ways based on reviewer, text section, and feedback category. The ability to filter reviewers’ comments gives the writer flexibility: The writer can focus on different aspects of the text, such as global structure, local structure, spelling, and so on, and revise the text from various perspectives. For those who prefer working from a hardcopy, the Feedback Editor will print a well-structured overview of the feedback. 3.2. Escribamos Escribamos is a Web-based application developed to support collaborative writing activities. It is accessible through most web browsers (Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Opera). The program
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
255
Fig. 5. Screen representation of a Domain in Escribamos with four windows: list of documents, selected document, comments, and command frame.
was developed by Kerstin Severinson Eklundh and Henrry Rodriguez5 at the IPLab of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (Sweden) in the context of Scribani, a collaborative European Minerva project (see Acknowledgements). The program enables small groups of students to plan, discuss, and revise one or more documents at a distance (both in time and space). More specifically, the tool is designed to support two main issues central to collaborative writing processes: sharing of documents and communication between co-authors. In order to allow for a suitable environment for collaboration, a set of functionalities have been developed: • Managing domains: In Escribamos, all the actions take place in what we call a “domain.” A domain is made up of a series of documents and the commenting areas associated with them (see Figure 5). Users can autonomously create a new domain and attribute a list of co-authors who can access it. A central reference document can be added to the domain to describe the task or specific procedures. • Uploading and downloading of document: When a domain is created, users can upload documents (.html, .mhtml, .pdf) to share with the other domain members. The documents appear in the left-hand frame of the interface and are stored on the server hosting the system. The order of the documents can be changed at any time. 5
For more information about Escribamos, we refer to the internal report about this program: “Escribamos – Development Report” by Kerstin Severinson Eklundh, Matteo Monari, Henry Rodriguez, & Chiara Rositto.
256
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
• Commenting and discussing documents’ contents and structure: After having selected a document, co-authors can add comments and view their colleagues’ comments. • Notification of email: Whenever a comment is added to a document, co-authors can be informed of new comments by an automatic email notification system. Co-authors can read the comments either in the email message or they can access Escribamos and read the comments there. In Escribamos, the comments are organized in threads. • Providing an overview: With the overview function students can compile selected documents of the domain into one main document, either including the comments or not. • Keeping track of past events: Users can open a pop-up window to consult a brief overview of recent activities in the domain. By integrating Escribamos in Calliope, we create a very flexible collaborative writing environment for the students to work together on various writing (sub)tasks, for instance, when completing the case studies. Co-authors can discuss coordination matters and administrative aspects as well as the content of the documents to be produced. The aim of the collaborative environment is to improve users’ performances by offering a shared space for coordination and the construction of knowledge in distributed decision making. 3.3. Digital portfolio Digital portfolios are a very effective instrument for providing a structure in which students can systematically manage writing tasks and critically reflect on their learning processes (Barrett, 2002; Van Tartwijk et al., 2003). Our aim is to add a digital portfolio to the writing center in order to reach our goal of creating a truly integrated writing environment. A digital portfolio tool allows students and tutors to access learning materials directly from Calliope and link them to the computer-assisted writing tools. At this point, we use the portfolio tool in Blackboard 6.0. Overall, both students and tutors are enthusiastic about this new portfolio tool. Most students do need some time to get accustomed to the new way of working. Just as an example, one confusing technical aspect is the necessity for dual uploading. Handing in an assignment means posting it on the Blackboard course site as well as in the portfolio. Many of the students assume that sending the assignment to the teacher makes it show up in the portfolio as well. However, most students adapt quickly to the new way of working and give positive feedback about the portfolio experiment. In the next sections we elaborate the two main pedagogical characteristics that were used as guiding principles in the development and organization of the modules for Calliope: the adaptation of the learning materials to different learning profiles and to different writing profiles.
4. Optimal adaptation to different learning profiles Most e-learning environments allow learners to study at their own pace, individually and independently. However, most of these environments are designed for one specific learning
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
257
style (e.g., by presenting wizard-like courses and disregarding alternative learning modes). Calliope, on the other hand, aims to provide an environment that explicitly accommodates different types of learners by adopting the principles of problem-solved learning (Glasgow, 1997; Evensen & Hmelo, 2000; Schwartz, Mennin, & Webb, 2001) and combining self-guided learning and guided learning. Calliope is constructed as a half-open environment that allows different learner types to create their own learning paths. Learning objectives about process and product are set in advance, but to meet those objectives various learning paths are possible. All the modules in Calliope consist of three different types of information/instruction that can be used to organize a learning path: theory, practice, and case studies (see the tabs in Figure 1). Generally speaking, these learning paths belong to one of the following approaches: a subskill-oriented approach (theory and practice) and a case-oriented approach (see also Kolb, 1984; Vermunt & Van Rijswijck, 1987). For an extensive overview of learning styles, see “Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16-learning” (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004) in which the most influential models are systematically reported and critically reviewed. To illustrate these approaches we will now briefly describe a recently developed Calliope module on writing press releases in English as a foreign language (see Jacobs, Opdenacker & Van Waes [2005] for an evaluation of the learning effect of this module). Like most other modules in Calliope, this module consists of three related main components: theory, practice, and a case study. The theory on writing press releases, for example, contains information on the following themes: history, functions, topics, preformulation, structure (start, headline, lead, paragraphs, boilerplate, end, and disclaimer), style, references, and quotations, beyond press releases. In addition, there is a short bibliography for further reading. The right-hand frame of every page shows links to these pages, identified by an icon (see Figure 6). The left-hand frame shows the structure of each module, highlighting the current page to support user orientation in the application. In the case study, students must solve a larger problem that has been divided into a set of problem-defined subtasks. All the subtasks have to be addressed, but students can decide which tasks they want to carry out first. Students have to complete the case step by step, but they can leave it at any time to go to related theory and practice to fine-tune a skill needed to finish a certain task. It is even possible to start the case without looking at the theory first. So, they are not forced to follow a strict, predefined learning path; they can organize their learning processes according to their own needs and preferences. The case study in the press release module presents students with some facts about the September 2002 explosion at the ExxonMobil distribution terminal on Staten Island, New York. Students are then asked to write a press release about the event. The case takes them through the different stages of the construction of a press release (e.g., headline, lead, disclaimer, etc.). In the end, they can compare their press release with the original from ExxonMobil. In contrast to the exercises in the practice section, no annotated solutions are offered in the case. Instead, learners are asked to send their press releases to one or more peers, who will review them using a specially designed feedback form (with checklist). Finally, the press releases and the peer feedback are discussed and commented on by the teacher during the next classroom session. The structured openness of the system prompts learners to organize their individual learning processes according to their own preferences, taking into account their own learning profiles.
258
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
Fig. 6. Screenshot of the theory about writing a boilerplate for a press release with references to practice and case materials in the right-hand frame.
Learners have to rely on self-regulation techniques and are to a large extent responsible for their own learning processes. No matter which approach they choose, at the end of the session they have to master the theory and they should be able to produce effective press releases. Next to the theories of Jan Vermunt and Frank Van Rijswijck (1987), who defined “learning style” as a coherent whole of learning activities that students usually employ, their learning orientations, and their mental models of learning, and thus emphasized self-regulation and meta-cognitive knowledge. We are also influenced by the theories of David Kolb (1984), who defined four different learning types: the accommodator, the diverger, the assimilator and the
Fig. 7. Kolb’s learning styles (Diagram from Litzinger & Osif 1992, p. 79).
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
259
converger (see Figure 7). His two-dimensional model places those four learning types on two axes. The first axis opposes active and reflective learning. The second axis opposes abstract versus concrete knowledge. Kolb’s accommodator, for instance, prefers learning through experience, active experimenting and trial-and-error, and needs little structure. This learner will probably choose the case-oriented approach and will not leave this approach unless he or she needs extra information. An assimilator on the other hand will probably prefer the suggested flow in the subskills approach where an abstract, reflective cognitive learning style is dominant. These learners like theory, rules, and structure. Theoretical models give them something to hold on to, and this is exactly what they find in the subskills path. These examples show the importance of taking into account different learning profiles in the organization of the learning environment. Next to the accommodation of different learning approaches, we also wanted to incorporate a process approach to the learning environment that focuses on different writing profiles. We will explain this concept in the next section.
5. Creating a process approach to writing Most writing centers offer a selection of subprocesses characterizing writing, like planning, formulating (or translating), and revision. These are often presented as linear instruction (e.g., lists of tips for idea collection, approaches for revision, etc.). This tendency may conflict with the recursive nature of the cognitive subprocesses that have been shown to dominate most writing processes (Hayes, 1980, 1996). By implementing process characteristics on different levels, Calliope presents students with a more open, and more realistic, non-linear writing approach where attention to process rather than product plays a central role in our pedagogical approach (see section 2). For example, at the end of each step in the cases learners are invited to think about different (non-linear) possibilities to complete the task (see references to headline and lead in Figure 8). This process approach plays an important role at various levels, and it has influenced the way in which the modules are constructed. The individual preferences a writer uses to organize his or her writing process are referred to as the writer’s “writing profile.” Research has shown that there is no such thing as the best writing profile (see Van Waes & Schellens [2003] for a review). Different people organize their writing activities differently depending on the genre, the writing medium, the task, the deadline, or the social environment. Calliope takes these different preferences into account and explicitly supports different writing profiles. In one of their earliest articles on the writing process, John Hayes and Linda Flower (1980) already developed a taxonomy of writing profiles. Luuk Van Waes and Peter Schellens (2003) have elaborated on this and other concepts and distinguished five different writing profiles (see Table 1). Calliope offers, for instance, an elaborate set of planning strategies for initial planners. For example, to accommodate this type of writing profile in the module on press releases, learners are systematically guided through the different elements of a press release. Advice on revising cannot always be put off until the end of the writing process but also has to be
260
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
Fig. 8. Screenshot indicating non-linear writing process development.
offered immediately after every sub-stage in completing the case so as to allow writers to make revision decisions on different text levels and at every moment in the writing process. Writers that are characterized by the second writing profile on the other hand (i.e., first draft writers), are offered a different approach. Such writers start writing almost immediately with hardly any Table 1 Short description of five writing profiles, based on Van Waes and Schellens (2003) Profile 1: Initial planners Initial planners tend to make relatively few revisions, especially not during the second writing phase (after having completed a first draft). They devote quite some time to initial planning. Profile 2: First draft writers First draft writers tend to focus quite explicitly on the first draft of their text. They start writing their text almost immediately and devote little time to initial planning. During the development of the first draft, a lot of revision takes place. Their writing process is highly fragmented and characterized by a high degree of recursion. Profile 3: Second draft writers Second draft writers postpone most of their revisions until the stage in which they are rereading/reviewing their first draft (i.e., the second writing phase). Many of these revisions are made at a level above the word, and the number of revisions is high in relation to the total number of words in the final text. Second draft writers spend quite some time on initial planning, but once they start writing, they pause relatively infrequently. However, any pauses they do make are relatively long. There is only a slight degree of recursion. Profile 4: Non-stop writers Non-stop writers revise very little. The proportion of words to number of revisions is correspondingly high in the final text. They also make relatively few revisions above the level of the word. Non-stop writers hardly ever pause while writing. They tend to spend little time on initial planning and complete their writing task more quickly than others. Profile 5: Average writers Average writers combine characteristics of the other writing profiles and don’t have a clear profile.
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
261
initial planning of the structure or the specific content. They revise the first draft of their text quite often and evaluate it thoroughly. This kind of writer is in need of more elaborate writing support at discrete stages in the writing process to compensate for the lack of initial planning. Therefore, in the theoretical component, explicit reference-based guidance is offered to this type of writer in all stages. As mentioned above, each text genre exerts its own influence on the organization of writing processes. Calliope highlights the particular context of each specific genre and allows for different levels of expertise. For instance, the characteristics of the writing process leading to a press release are entirely different from those of the writing process leading to a complete set of minutes; persons who are familiar with a certain genre will be open for different writing strategies than novices. The structure of the writing center should be flexible enough to adapt to these contextual differences. Next to the focus on writing profiles, we also want to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the different components of the writing process and encourage students to reflect on the importance of good and strategic monitoring of their own writing processes. Calliope thus confronts students at various stages of the writing process with (1) exercises solved by experts, (2) task material of peers and annotated by experts, or (3) videotaped process models of peers solving a writing problem while thinking aloud. Students’ metacognitive awareness and metacognitive skills are trained by exposing them to these materials. Observational learning in which either experts, teachers, or students are used as models, has proved to be very effective for reading and writing (Bandura, 1997; Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, & Van den Bergh, 2002; Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, Van den Bergh, & Van Hout-Wolters, 2004). Observational learning also helps students build a more elaborate framework for providing and interpreting peer feedback (see also section 3.1). In the future we would like to build an assessment tool to help learners identify and explore their own writing profiles. When learners are more aware of their preferences—and the strengths and weaknesses of their preferred profiles—they will organize their writing activities more consciously, taking added advantage of the flexibility of the learning module.
6. From theoretical framework to functional application As mentioned above, we started the development of Calliope by designing a theoretical framework to guide the design of a working prototype of the Calliope environment. However, development was iterative rather than top-down. We conducted usability tests on the working prototype, which provided the input necessary for further development. In these first usability tests, we focused mainly on the navigation and user-friendliness of the student interface. During initial development, we also entered into collaboration with colleagues at the Radboud University Nijmegen6 (The Netherlands), an institution with similar views on writing pedagogy and content creation. The Radboud University Nijmegen had also developed an online writing center called World Wide Writing. It was aimed at all higher education students 6
We would like to thank Ingrid Stassen and Vincent Boeschoten of the Radboud University Nijmegen for the inspiring and pleasant cooperation.
262
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
Fig. 9. Screenshot of the Scenario Studio authoring tool with a view of the table of contents and the content of the page on boilerplates.
who wished to develop their writing skills in one or more languages (Dutch, English, Spanish, French, and German). We greatly benefited from our collaboration with the Radboud University Nijmegen, especially because both of us experienced the need for a user-friendly authoring tool in order to efficiently add and change content, and—even more importantly—exchange content with each other in a flexible way. Before our collaboration, neither had a specific authoring tool. Content developers delivered their texts in a Word-file together with a folder containing additional materials such as audio, video and images. All this data had to be transformed manually into .html or .xml. This was very time-consuming due to the extensive process of copy/paste and the numerous meetings between content developers and the technical team. What we needed was a content management system (CMS) to facilitate the content development and maintenance process. The content management system consists of two separate applications: an authoring tool and a publication tool. Moving to an authoring tool made things easier and much more efficient. The authoring tool, Scenario Studio, (Sevensteps ) allowed us to streamline and optimize the content delivery and maintenance process by the teaching staff, content developers, and the technical team. The authoring tool immediately stores the content in a specific database. Whereas in the past only one person could develop content, now a large group of users (i.e., teachers and instructors) are able to develop new content simultaneously because the databases can be merged together (see Figure 9). Even with the help of the content management system, content development is still a very time-consuming endeavor. Most of our teachers have little or no experience in writing for the Web. All the existing content has to be adapted to the web-based environment but also to the
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
263
rigid macro structure (theory, practice, case) of the writing environment. We offer writers a limited set of rules and guidelines,7 but in the future we will also offer more elaborate, didactic support by means of scenarios and supporting theory. The identical database structure enables us to exchange and translate content fairly easily. However, this cannot be done without an extensive review process. All modules are checked for cultural and linguistic differences and are adapted for a specific educational setting or a specific (writing) course. This involves obvious changes, such as references to national sports teams, geographical locations, names of celebrities, but also more subtle adaptations in structure, vocabulary, and guidelines about strategic issues (e.g., use of politeness strategies in business letters). Once the content is added to the authoring tool, the publication tool, Publication Manager, extracts the content from the database and converts it to .xml format. The interesting feature of the Publication Manager is that it can convert the same source data into multiple formats, such as .html and .pdf. This allows for different accents in the content, the design, and the layout in both writing centers, Calliope (Antwerp, Belgium) and the Writing Studio (Nijmegen, The Netherlands).
7. Conclusions While developing a learning and writing environment, we became more and more convinced about the need to integrate pedagogical principles, content development, and technological aspects. For example, before beginning to develop content suitable for a web environment, one should be aware of the pedagogical concepts behind the content and have a technological environment in which to actually develop and evaluate the content. It was our aim to create a pedagogical writing environment as opposed to a “simple” learning environment. This environment features different writing tools to support specific aspects of the writing process. Giving and receiving feedback, rewriting texts on the basis of that feedback, communicating in a collaborative project, and interacting with portfolios are the main functions we think are crucial in this educational writing environment. Our future plans include the development of a method for assessing the quality of digital educational materials. This assessment and evaluation will result in a Quality Method for educational materials leading to a “quality label” by allowing effective and efficient evaluation of digital learning modules. We will also focus very specifically on the assessment of different types of materials (e.g., text, audio, video, etc.). We are convinced that although this quality aspect plays a crucial role in the integration of educational innovation in the (traditional) academic curriculum, it is all too often neglected. Additionally, we will focus on the further implementation and integration of the computerassisted writing tools in the learning environment to fully support the writing and learning processes. One thing missing in Calliope is an integrated writing environment: Students still have to open a word processor to produce text. We will look closely into how we can incorporate 7
To facilitate web writing and guarantee consistency in instructional style, we have developed a style guide in which the use of different functional components (e.g., tables, examples, lists, etc.) is explained, and guidelines are presented about textual, visual, and technical aspects.
264
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
a word processor environment. At the moment we are exploring the possibilities of integrating the web-based word processor Writely (), now acquired by Google Docs & Spreadsheets ().
Acknowledgements We would like to thank Thomas Quinlan (University of Antwerp, Belgium—ETS, New Jersey, USA), Geert Jacobs (University of Ghent, Belgium) and the anonymous reviewers who have generously contributed their time to the review process. We are grateful for their insights and expertise that guided us in the writing process. The Calliope project was first funded by the Flemish Community until 2003, and the prototype received a Best Practice award by the European Commission for its innovative approach to language learning. Later, the project received funding from the European Commission Minerva program (2003–2005), the University of Antwerp (2005–2006), and the University of Ghent (2005–2006). Currently the project is being further developed in the context of Quadem, a second project under the European Commission Minerva program. Liesbeth Opdenacker is a research associate at the University of Antwerp (Department of Management), Belgium. In 2001, she started the Scribani project () with Luuk Van Waes. She focuses on the development of Calliope, 2007 (), a multilingual online writing center.
Dr. Luuk Van Waes is full professor of Business and Technical Communication at the University of Antwerp (Department of Management), Belgium. His research focuses on writing processes and digital media, both in educational and professional settings. In 2007, he received the Computers and Composition Distinguished Book Award as coeditor of Writing and Digital Media published by Elsevier.
References Bandura, Albert. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barrett, Helen. (2002). Electronic portfolio handbook, Version 4.1. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from, . Braaksma, Martine, Rijlaarsdam, Gert, & Van den Bergh, Huub. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model–observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405–415. Braaksma, Martine, Rijlaarsdam, Gert, Van den Bergh, Huub, & Van Hout-Wolters, Bernadette. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1–36. Bersin, Josh. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. New York: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
L. Opdenacker, L. Van Waes / Computers and Composition 24 (2007) 247–265
265
Coffield, Frank, Moseley, David, Hall, Elaine, & Ecclestone, Kathryn. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. Learning and Skills Research Centre. Dudley-Evans, Tony, & St. John, Maggie-Jo. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Dysthe, Olga. (2001). The mutual challenge of writing research and the teaching of writing. Keynote, EATAW Conference, Groningen. Retrieved October 20 from . Evensen, Dorothy H., & Hmelo, Cindy E. (Eds.). (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Routledge. Fernando, Alonso, Lopez, Genoveva, Manrique, Daniel, & Vines, Jos´e M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 219. Glasgow, Neal A. (1997). New curriculum for new times: A guide to student-centered, problem-based Learning. Corwin Press, Inc. Hayes, John. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes, John R., & Flower, Linda S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Lee W. Gregg & Erwin R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Jacobs, Geert, Opdenacker, Liesbeth, & Van Waes, Luuk. (2005). A multilanguage online writing center for professional communication: Development and testing. Business Communication Quarterly, 68(1), 8–22. Johns, Ann M., & Price-Machado, Donna. (2001). English for specific purposes (ESP): Tailoring courses to students’ needs-and to the outside world. In Marianne Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 43–54). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Kolb, David A. (1984). Experiental learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey. Masie, Elliot (Ed.). (2005). Learning rants, raves, and reflections: A collection of passionate and professional perspectives. Oxford: Pfeiffer & Co. Palmquist, Mike. (2006). Rethinking instructional metaphors for Web-based writing environments. In Luuk Van Waes, Mari¨elle Leijten, & Chris Neuwirth (Eds.), Writing and digital media (pp. 199–219). Oxford: Elsevier. Rossett, Allison (Ed.). (2002). The ASTD e-learning handbook: Best practices, strategies and case studies. New York: McGraw Hill. Schwartz, Peter, Mennin, Stuart, & Webb, Graham. (2001). Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice. Kogan Page Ltd. Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin, Monari, Matteo, Rodriguez, Henrry, & Rositto, Chiara. (2005, 30 September). Escribamos: Development Report [Internal Report]. Stockholm, Sweden: IPLab, Royal Institute of Technology. Van Tartwijk, Jan, Driessen, Erik, Hoeberigs, Babet, K¨osters, Jacqueline, Ritzen, Magda, Stokking, Karel, & et al. (2003). Werken met een elektronisch portfolio [Using electronic portfolios]. Groningen: Wolters Noorhoff. Also available from . Van Waes, Luuk, & Schellens, Peter Jan. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 829–853. Vermunt, Jan D., & Van Rijswijck, Frank A. (1987). Inventaris leerstijlen voor het Hoger Onderwijs [Inventory of learning styles for higher education]. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
