Abstract
The present research consisted of a comprehensive evaluation of a hypertext model for teaching process writing at the junior high and high school level. Interests were to determine how two teachers and three different age groups of students used and reacted to the model, specifically, its embedded design features of model stories, note cards, idea buttons, mini-lessons, branching buttons, and cut-and-paste-tools. Results showed applications of the embedded features to vary based on teacher attitudes, feature attributes (e.g., ease of use and appeal), and student characteristics. Older students made more usage of many of the features, but were less positive about the hypertext model given their greater involvement with completing writing assignments rather than with exploring new forms of writing. The implications of the results are discussed regarding the instructional design and classroom implementation of new technologies for teaching process writing strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Applebee, A., Langer, J., & Mullis, I. (1990).The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1986). Levels of inquiry into the nature of expertise in writing. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.),Review of research in education (Vol. 13, pp. 259–282). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Bolter, J.C. (1991).Writing space: The computer, hypermedia, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bradley, M. (1993).An evaluation of Channel One: Effects on learning and attitudes in a suburban high school. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In Weinert, F.E., & Kluwe, R.H. (Eds.),Metacognition, Motivation, And Understanding (pp. 65–116): Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruce, B. (1991). Roles for computers in teaching the English language arts. In J. Flood, J.M. Jenson, D. Lapp, & J.R. Squire (Eds.),Handbook of research on teaching the English Arts (pp. 536–541). New York: Macmillan.
Calkins, L.M. (1986).The art of teaching writing. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Clark, R.E. (1989). Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 57–66.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature.Review of Educational Research, 61, 107–155.
Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey.Computer, 20, 17–40.
Daiute, C. (1992). Multimedia composing: Extending the resources of kindergarten to writers across the grades.Language Arts, 69, 250–260.
Davies, I.K. (1973).Competency-based learning: Technology, management, and design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1991).The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Gallo, M.A., & Horton, P.B. (1994). Assessing the effect on high school teachers of direct and unrestricted access to the Internet: A case study of an East Central Florida high school.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 17–39.
Garland, K.P. (1991). Diffusion and adoption of educational technology. In G. A. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 252–258). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Hildyard, A. (1992). Written composition. In M. C. Atkin's (Eds.),Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Vol. 4, 1528–1540). MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.
Hillerich, R.L. (1985).Teaching children to write, K-8: A complete guide to developing writing skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Hypertext as instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(1), 83–92.
Jonassen, D.H., Campbell, J.P., & Davidson, M.E. (1994). Learningwith media: Restructuring the debate.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31–40.
Jones, M.K., Li, Z., & Merrill, M.D. (1992). Rapid prototyping in automated instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 95–100.
Lohr, L. (1993). Formative evaluation of a hypertext story writing environment. (Doctoral Dissertation, Memphis State University).
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Madden, N.A., Wasik, B.A., & Petza, R.J. (1989).Writing from the heart: A writing process approach for first and second graders. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.
McGee, L., & Richgels, D.J. (1990).Literacy's beginnings: Supporting young readers and writers. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
McLellan, H. (In press). Hyper stories: Some guidelines for instructional designers.Journal of Research on Computing in Education.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1990).Profiles of literacy: An assessment of young adults. Princeton, JJ: Educational Testing Service.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1986). Profiles of literacy: An assessment of young adults. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Neuman, D. (1993). Designing databases as tools for higher-level learning: Insights from instructional systems design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(4), 24–46.
Neuwirth, C., Kaufer, D., Chimera, R. & Gillespie, T. (1987).The notes program: A hypertext application for writing from source texts. (CECE Tech. Rep. No. 1). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Educational Computing in English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 308 499)
Reilly, B. (1992).The negotiations of group authorship among second graders using multimedia composing software. (ACOT Rep. No. 14). Cupertino, CA: Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow.
Resnick, L.B. (1987).Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19–33.
Ross, S.M. & Morrison, G.R. (1994). Evaluation as a tool for research and development. In R. D. Tennyson & A. Barron (Eds.).Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools. Berlin: Springer.
Schriver, K.A. (1989). Plain language for expert or lay audiences: Designing text using protocol-aided revision (Tech. Rep. No. 46). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334 583).
Smith, J.B., & Lansman, M. (1988).A cognitive basis for a computer writing environment. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Department of Computer Science Technical Report TR87-032.
Stein, N.L. (1986). Knowledge and process in the acquisition of writing skills. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.),Review of research in education (Vol. 13, pp. 225–253). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Tennyson, R.D. (1981). Use of adaptive information for advisement in learning concepts and rules using computer-assisted instruction.American Educational Research Journal, 18, 425–438.
Trigg, R.H. & Suchman, L.A., (1989). Collaborative writing in NoteCards. In McAleese, R. D. (Ed.),Hypertext theory into practice. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.
Walton, C. (1990). Critical thinking and “the nation's report card”:1990 reflections. Las Vegas, NV: Walton. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 553)
Warren, J. (1989). Hypertext: A tool for academic exploration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 175)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was conducted as a doctoral dissertation completed by the first author at the University of Memphis under the supervision of the second and third authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lohr, L., Ross, S.M. & Morrison, G.R. Using a hypertext environment for teaching process writing: An evaluation study of three student groups. ETR&D 43, 33–51 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300471
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300471