Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computerized prompting partners and keystroke recording devices: Two macro driven writing tools

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent research into composing processes has focused on instructional intervention strategies that promote effective composition practices within computerized writing environments. The field of computers and composition has benefitted both from advances in computing tools and developments in learning theory. The innovative computer tool discussed in this paper uses the macro-command language of a full-featured word processor to enact strategic support designed to help writers with their written work. From a theoretical standpoint, this tool created a writing environment based on Vygotskian theory of mediated learning and was grounded in an instructional strategy known as “procedural facilitation.” To evaluate the effectiveness of this computerprompting tool, a second macro application was used to log student keystrokes, thereby tracking student writing development, revisionary practices, and keystroke reactions to the prompting partner. Students using the prompting tool enacted divergent and convergent thinking assistance that appeared at the bottom of their computer screens while the system saved a process record of their keystrokes. Procedures for creating macro-driven prompting programs and keystroke-logging devices are discussed. Additionally, a catalog of prompts and summary of keystroke-mapping benefits are provided. Finally, our research using the macro-driven prompting partner and keystroke-register tool is detailed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Applebee, A.N. (1982). Writing and learning in school settings. In M. Nystrand (Ed.),What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebee, A.N. (1984). Writing and reasoning.Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction.Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in Instructional Psychology, (Vol. 2, pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “inert knowledge.” In S.F. Chipman, J.W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1, Research and open questions). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C.J., Cavalcante, R., Liszewski, A.B., & Reynolds, T.H. (1995).Microgenetic keystroke analysis of developmental differences in preadolescent composing. Paper presented 6th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

  • Bonk, C.J., Hay, K.E., & Fischler, R.B. (1995).Five key resources for an electronic community of elementary student weather forecasters. Paper presented 6th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

  • Bonk, C.J., Medury, P.V., & Reynolds, T.H. (1994). Cooperative hypermedia: The marriage of collaborative writing and mediated environments.Computers in the Schools, 10(1/2), 79–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C.J., & Reynolds, T.H. (1991).A review of procedural facilitation in writing: Prompting questions for Vygotsky. Paper presented at convention of National Council of the Teaching of English, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Bonk, C.J., & Reynolds, T.H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative- evaluative computerized prompting framework.Computers and Human Behavior, 8(1), 39–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C.J., Reynolds, T.H., & Koury, K.A. (1993).Tracing developmental differences in composing through keystroke mapping. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, 1993.

  • Bridwell, L., Johnson, P., & Brehe, S. (1987). Composing and computers: Case studies of experienced writers. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.),Writing in real time: Modelling production processes (pp. 81–107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridwell, L., Nancarrow, P.R., & Ross, D. (1984). The writing process and the writing machine: Current research on word processors relevant to the teaching of composition. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.),New directions in composition research. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridwell, L., Sirc, G., & Brooke, R. (1985). Revising and computing: Case studies of student writers. In S.W. Freedman (Eds.),The acquisition of written language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J.G. (1990). Teachers and students: Constructivists forging new connections.Educational Leadership, 47(5), 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruer, J.T. (1993).Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. (1989). Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daiute, C. (1985). Do writers talk to themselves? In S.W. Freedman (Ed.),The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 133–159). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daiute, C.A. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies in computers.Research in the Teaching of English, 20(2), 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daiute, C., & Kruidenier, J. (1985). A self-questioning strategy to increase young writers' revising processes.Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 307–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C.J. (1992). The future of multimedia: Bridging to virtual worlds.Educational Technology, 32, 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (in press). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. To appear in D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. NY: Scholastic.

  • Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Fear, K.L., & Anderson, L.M. (1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write information texts.Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., Carvey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision.College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosnot, C.T. (1984). Media and technology in education: A constructivist view.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32(4), 195–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, S.W., Dyson, A.H., & Chaffe, W. (1987).Research in writing: Past, present, and future. (Center for the Study of Writing, Technical Report No. 1.) Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1988). Instructional recommendations for teaching writing to exceptional students.Exceptional Children, 54(6), 506–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R.T. (1989). Idea processors: Computer aids for planning and composing text. In B.K. Britton, & S.M. Glynn (Eds.),Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R.B. (1987). The implications of cognitive psychology for computer-based learning tools.Educational Technology, 27(11), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R.B. (1991). The impact of computer-based tools and embedded prompts on writing processes and products of novice and advanced college writers.Cognition and Instruction, 8(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S.P. & Derry, S.J. (Eds.). (1993).Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, T.K. (1988). Education in a world of omnipotent and omniscient technology. In R.S. Nickerson, & P.P. Zodhiates (Eds.),Technology in education: Looking toward 2020. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, M. (1990).Computers, cognition, and writing instruction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers.Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993).The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books.

  • Pea, R.D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R.D. (1987). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem.International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 639–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogrow, S. (1990). A Socratic approach to using computers with at-risk students.Educational Leadership, 47, 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L.B., & Johnson, A. (1988). Intelligent machines for intelligent people: Cognitive theory and the future of computer-assisted learning. In R.S. Nickerson, & P.P. Zodhiates (Eds.),Technology in education: Looking toward 2020. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, T.H., & Bonk, C.J. (1990).The effects of generative and evaluative procedural facilitation on college writers' reprocessing of texts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

  • Reynolds, T.H., & Bonk, C.J. (1992).Repurposing the word processor. In N. Estes & M. Thomas (Eds.) The 9th International Conference on Technology and Education, (Vol.I, pp. 535–537). Paris, France.

  • Reynolds, T.H., & Bonk, C.J. (1996). Facilitating college writers' revisionary processes within a generative-evaluative prompting framework.Computers and Composition. (Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 93–108).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1988). AI in reverse: Computer tools that turn cognitive.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 123–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology.Communication Research, 17(1), 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the Writing Partner. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 179–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1,Research and open questions). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd edition, pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan Education Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition.Cognitive Science, 8, 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, I. (1984). A constructivist perspective for teaching thinking.Educational Leadership, 42(3), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloway, E. (1993). Reading and writing in the 21st century.Communications on the ACM, 36(5), 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, J. (1986). The assessment of critical thinking in history/social science through writing.Social Studies Review, 25(2), 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E.P. (1974).Norms and technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1986).Thought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century.Scientific American, September, 94–104.

  • Witte, S.P. (1985). Revising, composition theory, and research design. In S. Freedman (Ed.),The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 250–284). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff, E., Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1981). On the road to computer assisted compositions.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 10(2), 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Givon, H. (1991). Enhancing writing-related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner.American Educational Research Journal, 28, 373–391.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Department of Educational Curriculum and Instruction at Texas A & M University, USA

    Thomas H. Reynolds

  2. the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at Indiana University, USA

    Curtis Jay Bonk

Authors
  1. Thomas H. Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Curtis Jay Bonk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

In that both authors contributed equally to this paper, authorship order does not indicate differential contributions to the manuscript. The authors would like to thank Amy Liszewski, Kevin Koury, and Roseli Cavalcante for their valuable assistance in analyzing keystrokes and creating a coding scheme. Portions of this paper appeared in the conference proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Technology and Education, Paris, France, 1992 and the conference abstracts of the 6th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) in August, 1995, University of Nijmegen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reynolds, T.H., Bonk, C.J. Computerized prompting partners and keystroke recording devices: Two macro driven writing tools. ETR&D 44, 83–97 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300428

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300428

Keywords

Search

Navigation