CESI Conference January 2002 St.Patrick's College

John Threadgold,Newtown National School,Co. Wicklow

Abstract
This paper reports on the design and implementation of technology-based collaborative and reflective tools for use in the writing of eleven and twelve year-olds in an Irish primary school. It addresses the context of metacognition and the design of a technology-based constructivist learning environment and presents and discusses findings related to the use of technology as part of an ethnographic study. It details the use of the tools in a classroom environment and explores the contribution information technology makes to the development of metacognitive strategies and how it can facilitate and map the thought processes of collaborative children’s writing.

Introduction
The revised Irish Primary School Curriculum (1999) places a new emphasis on children’s writing as a process with a particular focus on the acquisition of a set of writing skills. This paper addresses the use of information technology in enabling students to develop these skills. It reports on the design and explores the role of technology-based collaborative and reflective tools in the development of metacognitive skills and in the production of higher quality children’s writing. These tools consisted of an instant messaging system to enable collaboration and the design and use of a hypertext structure to facilitate feedback for the participants and encourage higher-order thinking skills.

Metacognitive Strategies and the Context of a Constructivist Learning Environment
Why should we expect our students to use metacognitive strategies? What exactly are they? Where can they prove useful? How can they be further developed? Helping students to learn how to question in this manner is a feature of metacognition. Here I present answers to my own questions. “A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.” (H.L. Mencken).

It is well documented that teacher expectations have a crucial role to play in the development of students. Merton (1948) first coined the term “self-fulfilling prophecy” and says students’ behaviour and achievement are shaped by the way they are treated by their teacher and based on the teacher’s expectations of them. Expecting students to focus on higher-order thinking skills will result in a more able and better-equipped pupil. This is more true for today’s world than before, even more so in the classrooms of the future with ‘always-on’ internet connections and vast quantities of information available on request. Gough (1991) states that “Many educators believe that specific knowledge will not be as important as the ability to learn and make sense of new information.”

Pupils will need skills to sort and create knowledge from it all. On the same theme Robinson (1987) says that if students are to function successfully in a highly technical society, they must be equipped with lifelong learning and thinking skills necessary to acquire and process information in an ever-changing world. There is widespread acceptance of the idea that learning and making sense of new information seem to be best achieved through the use of metacognitive skills. This is why we should expect our students to use them but I think we should also be clear on what exactly they are. It is to the search for a definition that I turn next.

In correspondence with Jerome Bruner he asked me to consider getting the children to ask questions about a web page: “Who displays one, why, who consults one, why, etc. I’d think you’d get most from keeping that part of things open and questing” (Bruner 2000). These questions are higher-order and encourage the students to question not just what they are doing (making a web page) but why they are doing it. This is an example of metacognition but exactly what is it?

From my review of the literature there seems to be no universal agreement as to a precise definition for what is variously termed metacognition, higher-order thinking, critical thinking, creative thinking or thinking skills. Beyer (1985) defines critical thinking as “the process of determining the authenticity, accuracy and worth of information or knowledge claims”. Flavell (1977) defines metacognitive knowledge as stored concepts to guide cognitive activity and metacognitive experience as reactions to ongoing cognitive activity. If I were to limit myself to a short definition I would term it ‘active reflection’. We now turn to where can the advantages of metacognitive strategies be seen - are they clear and can they be quantified?

Metacognitive strategies include planning, monitoring, adapting and evaluating learning and learning outcomes. These strategies are important in learning across all disciplines.

“Effective, self-regulated learners know and use a wide repertoire of learning strategies and metacognitive strategies to manage themselves and their learning tasks” (Zimmerman, 1994). There is extensive literature linking the use of nearly all thinking skills programmes and practices with a positive impact on student achievement. Barba and Merchant (1990) examine the effects of science software, which incorporates generative cognitive strategies such as recall, integration, organization, elaboration, and visualization. Experimental students outperformed controls on tests of both higher-order cognitive skills and knowledge of science content. Haller, Child and Walberg (1988) brings together findings from 20 studies on the effects of teaching students the metacognitive skills of awareness, monitoring, and regulating of their own understanding of material read. Findings indicate a substantial effect of such instruction on students’ reading comprehension.

How can metacognitive skills be further developed in Irish schools? Can computers be used to advance higher-order thinking skills? The answer is to be found within the context of the learning environment. From the literature it is clear that all is not well in the area of the design of constructivist learning environments and there is a need for much thought to be put into the design of true constructivist learning tools. Jonassen, Wilson, Wang and Grabinger (1993) say that the people who learn most from the design and development of instructional materials are the designers. I think two questions need to be answered; what should be the basis for our design of a learning environment and what kind of environment should that be? It is important that we focus our learning tools on what Vygotsky terms “The discrepancy between a child’s actual mental age and the level he reaches in solving problems with assistance ... the zone of his proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1986). Bruner (1996) emphasises his notion of a ‘spiral curriculum’ in which learners return again and again to a topic each time building further on their existing knowledge. Resnick (1996) argues that it is much better for learners to become producers of information and not merely consumers of it. In my experience this ‘consumer mentality’ not only exists in wider society but it is prevalent (even encouraged) in the Irish education system. It is with these factors in mind that the editing and feedback tools used in this research were designed.

Design of the ‘Editing and Feedback Tools’
While word processing as identified by Jonassen (1995) can be used as a mindtool in the writing process it was the aim of this research to explore the use of tools which would further develop it, something which would increase the students’ focus on the process and add to their metacognitive strategies in a manner over and above that facilitated by a basic word processing tool.

The first stage in the design of the tools was to identify the needs of the learners and which qualities would be characteristic of a Constructivist Learning Environment in order to build the design around them. The needs were collaborative and reflective - something was needed to help them to work with each other to support each other’s knowledge and to help to construct it - something which would provide feedback in order to move higher up the learning ‘spiral’ as referred to by Bruner (1996).

The author identified an ‘instant messaging’ application as one which would facilitate collaboration between students. To provide feedback and to encourage metacognitive strategies a hypertext structure was designed which enabled the students to reflect on their work and record and compare its stages of development. This also required students to answer questions about their writing such as why a particular piece was being written, to which genre of writing it belonged and at which audience it was aimed.

Keeping file size to a minimum was essential because the advantages of hypertext can be easily negated. Research on a wide variety of hypertext systems has shown that users need response times of less than one second when moving from one page to another if they are to navigate freely through an information space (Nielsen 1997).

Outline of Research Methodology
This study took place in an Irish primary school classroom over a six-week period in Spring 2001. There was a total of fourteen pupils in the classroom but the students involved in this study were six in number, all of whom were in the one class (fifth class) and were eleven and twelve years of age. The author of this research was the teacher in the classroom on a fulltime basis.

At the beginning of the study (before the editing and feedback tools were introduced) students were interviewed and asked questions detailing their views on what constituted the process of writing a story and whether they thought the use of a computer would be helpful and in what ways. Their answers were recorded using a digital voice recorder. They were then requested to keep logs of their use of the computer in the story-writing process. They were then required to write and edit stories on using a computer in a manner recommended in the Irish primary curriculum - “to write independently through a process of drafting, revising, editing and publishing” (Irish Primary Curriculum, 1999). The next stage was the introduction of the editing and feedback tools, which were used by the students in the writing of further stories. The instant messaging tool could be used at any stage but because the feedback website needed to be constructed after each draft the writing process for this work took place over a number of days. This part of the students’ work was observed and recorded in photographs and by note taking. Transcriptions of the messages sent as part of the editing process were logged.

The concluding stage of the study was the completion of questionnaires and the recording of interviews with the participants.

Implementation of the ‘Editing and Feedback Tools’
The first of these tools was an instant messaging application. The students required direction to use it for the purposes for which it was intended but in time used it to collaborate and seek feedback from each other.

The second editing and feedback tool was a recording of each draft of writing along with the thoughts of the writer and combining these into a hypertext structure. The purpose of this tool was to enable the writers to receive feedback on their work and to make their thought process used in the writing more visible, in a sense to create a visible spiral of progress in the method advocated by Bruner (1996). By design therefore the feedback tool was used in a manner that entailed the construction of the hypertext structure in a spiral fashion. The students worked in pairs, one as writer and one as editor. As the first draft was being written the instant messaging software was used to collaborate. A second draft was then written using feedback from the editor. The first and second drafts were then combined into the hypertext structure. The writer was also asked to answer questions about the piece that was being written such as why it was being written, at whom was it aimed and to which genre it belonged. This structure was then used in the writing of the third draft (if needed) and the final publication. There were no real short cuts to be taken during this process - some technical knowledge was required on the part of the researcher (who was an integral part of the proceedings) to make it work and it could be said with some validity that this mirrors the acquisition of true knowledge.

Findings
There was a large increase in the number of students who thought that the computer was helpful in writing a story.

There was an increase in the number of higher-order skills identified as being supported by computer use. Following the use of the tools students emphasised thinking, asking questions and organising ideas whereas previously they had mentioned such skills as checking spellings and helping to make writing that was more legible.

The students were more aware of thinking through the steps needed in writing a story as opposed to just drafting, editing and redrafting.

There was an increased level of collaboration in story writing. This collaboration tended to become more effective and focused as time went on and the novelty of using the tools faded. There was also more of a shared sense of ownership of certain stories.

The technology increased the level of thinking about writing as the two words ‘thinking’ and ‘writing’ were mentioned together much more at the end of the study than at the beginning.

The feedback tools made the thought process and ‘train of thought’ of the students more visible.

From observation the students were more engaged in their writing and were more comfortable with the idea of writing being a craft or a work in progress.

Use of instant messaging in a classroom situation can be effective and unobtrusive.

The setting up of the editing tools took much longer than expected and the creation and use of the feedback hypertext structure was detailed work and cumbersome in a classroom situation.

Discussion of Findings
The finding that there was a large increase in the number of students who thought that the computer is helpful in writing a story is open to challenge from the point of view that the computer was being used more for story writing than had been previously the case. It should also be borne in mind that the sample involved was small - just six students were involved. This challenge would have more validity were it not for the fact that the students also mentioned thinking, questioning and organising ideas in their interviews. Their own statements that more time was spent thinking at the computer adds to the finding. This also backs the finding that the computer was used more for higher-order skills as the study progressed. From observation of the students it was also apparent that as the story writing process developed more time was spent reading and thinking at the computer and less time actually typing, reinforcing the data from interviews with the students.

The students mentioned increased collaboration and sense of ownership and this was also borne out through observation. Particularly revealing was the comment that “this should be our story and not just mine”. But can this type of collaboration not take place in an ordinary classroom situation without resorting to technology? I would contend that there are advantages in collaborating in the form described here. It is more unobtrusive and has advantages in a busy classroom where the teacher may want other students to focus their attention elsewhere without distraction from others. One of the students took the role of ‘editor on duty’ which meant that they could be working at another task but were available for support when a message was received requesting feedback. This feedback was regularly given with little or no distraction to others and the uninitiated may not have noticed it happening at all.

This ‘editor on duty’ idea (an extension of peer tutoring) could easily be extended to cover perhaps three or four students at a time if the appropriate technological system was in place and could also be extended to students from other classrooms (or indeed other schools) collaborating in this fashion. There is room for further study of this idea.

The students were interested in having their ‘train of thought’ made visible in the hypertext structure - it requires technical knowledge to construct and is labour intensive so it would not be suitable for every occasion on which a student writes a story but I would argue is of considerable value and each pupil would benefit from having at least one of their stories constructed and revealed in this way. It is a very effective method of keeping record of a work in progress - it is usually only the final or published draft of a work that is kept on record.

Conclusion
The use of metacognitive strategies is well documented in the field of education but as technology use in classrooms is a relatively recent occurrence there is work to be done in the study of how technology can facilitate such strategies. This paper has attempted to contribute to this work. It has elaborated on why metacognition is important, what exactly it is, where it can be useful and how it can be developed through the use of information technology in the classroom. A constructivist learning environment is the preferred context and this paper detailed the design of collaborative and reflective tools in particular to facilitate the emergence of young writers. Students considered the computer to be more helpful in their writing than they had at first thought. They were more thoughtful and engaged in their writing which they viewed more as a process. Higher-order thinking skills were developed and their frequency increased with the use of the feedback and editing tools.

It has been stated that there is a gulf between the ambitions of education technology theorists and the actual practice of teachers in the classroom. The design and implementation of the constructivist learning environment detailed here attempted to bridge this gulf and there is potential for a more streamlined and user-friendly application which would build on the foundations of this research.

References

1. Government of Ireland (1999) Primary School Curriculum

2. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210 in Tauber (1998) Good or Bad, What Teachers Expect from Students They Generally Get! online at: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed426985.html

3. Gough, Deborah Thinking about Thinking. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1991. (ED 327 980) in Cotton, K. ‘Teaching Thinking Skills’ online at: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu11.html

4. Robinson, I. S. A Program to Incorporate Higher Order Thinking Skills into Teaching and Learning for Grades K-3. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova University, 1987. (ED 284 689) in Cotton, K. ‘Teaching Thinking Skills’ online at: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu11.html

5. Jerome Bruner (1996) The Culture of Education Harvard University Press

6. Via e-mail exchange with the author

7. Beyer, B. K. “Critical Thinking: What Is It?” Social Education 49/4 (1985): 270-276. in Cotton, K. ‘Teaching Thinking Skills’ online at: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu11.html

8. H. M. Wellman (1985) The Origins of Metacognition. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, and T. G. Waller, editors, Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance, Volume 1. Academic Press, New York, NY,. in Kumar (1994) online: http://mofetsrv.mofet.macam98.ac.il/~izak/edd/edu/a/0616.html

9. Zimmerman, B. J. (1994) Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance. Issues and educational applications (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

10. Barba, R. H., and Merchant, L. J. “The Effects of Embedding Generative Cognitive Strategies in Science Software.” JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING 10/1 (1990): 59-65. in Cotton, K. ‘Teaching Thinking Skills’ online at: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu11.html

11. Haller, E. P.; Child, D. A.; and Walberg. “Can Comprehension Be Taught? A Quantitative Synthesis of ‘Metacognitive’ Studies.” H. J. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 17/9 (1988)

12. Constructivist uses of expert systems to support learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 86-94. Jonassen, D.H., Wilson, B.G., Wang, S., & Grabinger, R.S. (1993). In Technology as Cognitive Tools: Learners as Designers Online at: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/paper1.html

13. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

14. Mitchel Resnick (1996) Pianos Not Stereos: Creating Computational Construction Kits. Online at: http://mevard.www.media.mit.edu/groups/el/Papers/mres/pianos/pianos.html

15. Jonassen (1995) Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking Online at: http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/Mindtools.pdf

16. Nielsen (1997) Response Times: The Three Important Limits Online at: http://useit.com/papers/responsetime.html