Carola Strobl

Learning to Think and Write Together: Collaborative Synthesis Writing, Supported by a Script and a Video-based Model

Synthesis writing is a cognitively and linguistically demanding task, even more so in a foreign language. Collaboration can help students to learn how to elaborate the content of the source texts, and to integrate it in a new coherent text. But in order to be effective, online collaboration has to be pedagogically supported. In this chapter, a promising approach to support students in this complex task is presented and evidence for its effectiveness is provided. The effect of two instructional support instruments, a video-based model and a script, on the development of collaborative writing processes is described. Using a mixed-methods approach, collaboration intensity and efficiency are measured quantitatively, and collaboration effectiveness is observed qualitatively. The data originate from an in-class intervention study: 42 university college students grouped in triads wrote three syntheses in subsequent sessions, collaborating in Google Docs, and being supported in two of the sessions. The analysis results confirm the benefit of the support instruments used and broaden the understanding of collaborative writing processes: qualitative insight shows that joint information processing is intensified through scaffolding, and leads to a better content selection and to good peer-induced revisions of the jointly produced text on different levels. Regarding collaboration efficiency, work flow was improved through scaffolding, albeit to a less noticeable degree for the high-proficiency groups

Assessing QuADEM: preliminary notes on a new method for evaluating online language learning courseware

In this article, we set out to assess QuADEM (Quality Assessment of Digital Educational Material), one of the latest methods for evaluating online language learning courseware. What is special about QuADEM is that the evaluation is based on observing the actual usage of the online courseware and that, from a checklist of 12 different components, the evaluator is free to pick and choose one or more. In particular, we focus on the QuADEM evaluation of a module of the digital environment Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO) that aims at preparing B1/B2 students for a study semester in Germany. DUO is meant for self-study supported by an online tutor. For our assessment, we observed two respondents during their activities in the online learning module, using think-aloud protocol, video registration, and keystroke logging, and we conducted semistructured postintervention interviews with them. Zooming in on usability, we found that this QuADEM component lacks assessment criteria regarding feedback and task design, both of which turned out to play an important motivational role in our assessment. While both could be added to the QuADEM usability dimension under the denomination “didactic usability,” we suggest that it might be worth reconsidering QuADEMs pick-and-choose approach.

Attitudes towards online feedback on writing: Why students mistrust the learning potential of models

This exploratory study sheds new light on students’ perceptions of online feedback types for a complex writing task, summary writing from spoken input in a foreign language (L2), and investigates how these correlate with their actual learning to write. Students tend to favour clear-cut, instructivist rather than constructivist feedback, and guided self-evaluation through model solutions in online learning environments. However, the former type is too limited to tackle all dimensions of advanced writing. Constructivist feedback, in the form of guided modelling, allows addressing the higher-order concerns involved in summary writing. In addition, it is widely acknowledged that activating the zone of proximal development (ZPD) through cognitive involvement is beneficial to learning. To investigate students’ learning from both types of feedback, a one-group pre-post-test intervention study was set up. Students attending a course on summary writing in L2 within a bachelor programme in Applied Languages (n=38) followed an individual online learning module containing both instructivist fill-the-gap exercises and model solutions with constructivist guiding questions for self-assessment. The students’ actual learning gain was measured through pre- and post-tests, and compared with their perceived learning gain, as expressed in self-evaluation. The comparison reveals a dichotomy between the students’ observed learning curve and an underestimation of their own progress. This dichotomy was found to originate in a mismatch between their expectations towards the online learning module and the characteristics of the constructivist feedback conveyed. This mismatch can be attributed to three key factors: (1) evaluation, (2) linguistic focus, and (3) learner motivation.