Carnegie Mellon University

A Learner-Centered Computer Environment for Critical Reading, Reasoning, and Writing

Purpose of Project:

As part of the recent surge of interest in studying writing and computing, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) developed a cognitive model of the composing process. The WARRANT project emerged as one response to poor composition; even at "better " institutions, students do not write argumentative essays well. Its staff exploited the novel cognitive research being conducted at CMU by developing a computer-based curriculum on the processes of structuring argumentative writing.

Innovative Features:

The project assumed that skills of reading, writing, and reasoning are highly interdependent_that students' inability to write well goes beyond writing to their inability to read and reason critically. To address this problem, CMU observed, close-hand, experienced and inexperienced writers at work, employing what they called "process-tracing" methods such as thinking-aloud or interview protocols. These observations led to improvements in the traditional way of teaching students to read and write argumentation.

The new reading/writing curriculum now in use was designed to help students read critically, reason about what they are reading, and write original essays. It focuses upon key processes revealed in the data analysis.

• Summarizing. Students learn to reconstruct an author's line of argument and to produce a written summary of an author's position.
• Synthesizing. Students learn to design structures that allow them to compare the lines of argument of multiple authors. They learn to write a synthesis essay.
• Analyzing. Students learn to reach their own conclusions on an issue by exploring and evaluating possible positions. They learn to write an analysis of an issue.
• Contributing. Students learn to construct an original line of argument from their conclusions and to write an original essay that makes a contribution to an issue.

Evaluation:

Formative evaluation took the form of observing students on computer tutorials being tested for teaching reading and writing, run on the Andrew computing system. Thinking-aloud protocols were gathered from both novice and expert writers. Participants read two short essays on an issue, wrote an essay that synthesized them, and laid out their own positions. Or they read a group of authors who addressed a single issue and then tried to say something original about it. While writing, they were asked to think aloud and take notes as they wrote and what they said was recorded.

Analysis of students' cognitive processes and thinking-aloud notes were used to revise the tutorials, as were interviews with the students about their reading and writing tasks. The tutorials have menu options that allow users to report problems and reactions, as do CMU's campus-wide electronic bulletin boards, so both suggested needed revisions. Other kinds of ease-of-use information, questionnaire, and observation data are still being analyzed.

Impact or Changes From Grant Activities:

The project designed two computer tools to aid writers engaged in reading and writing processes. Essentially, Notes, a hypertext tool, was designed to help students take notes while reading. It allows the user to record his own ideas while reading, recover the context for those ideas easily, and view ideas from multiple perspectives.

Comments enables teachers and students to respond to each other's texts by "talking" about them over a campuswide network of workstations. They can discuss their work progress, ask for clarification, and share plans for revision. This program serves as a communication support system for writers and readers. Both tools, Notes and Comments, are now used in CMU's new writing curriculum on strategies for writing, reading texts, and reading and writing arguments.

Arguing From Sources: Exploring Issues Through Reading and Writing (Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1989), embodies a course based on project research "to solve problems in teaching original argument from sources, more commonly known as the research or term paper."

Students working with the Comments program succeeded in correcting more grammatical errors than students working with a traditional hard copy handbook. Interview data from student and teacher users showed that the Comments program had altered their patterns of interactions about writing, especially in the frequency with which teachers encourage students to submit drafts and the frequency with which students submit drafts or multiple drafts for comment. Currently, CMU is studying the effects of patterns of increased teacher-student interaction via computers with quality of writing.

The Notes program reduced students' difficulties in writing from source texts by automating lists of these texts and linking students' notes to them. The program allows users to compose notes, display them for viewing, create alternative lists of notes, cut and paste across different lists, and group notes into appropriate categories.

Typically, inexperienced writers spend much of their time writing down quotes from source texts rather than recording paraphrases, inferences, and interpretations. Indeed, program data showed that Notes freed students to take significantly more reflective notes and to record their own ideas.

Students' attitudes were slightly positive on all nine dimensions tested for the Notes program, except its speed. For the Comments program, students were neutral to slightly positive on seven dimensions, but were slightly negative about the program's speed and familiarity.

What Activities Didn't Work?

Although CMU has one of the highest access ratios of students to computers in the country, the demand for workstations continues to exceed supply. Until access to the technology improves, it is unlikely students will use the computer tools outside course requirements. Advanced function workstation technology is essential for supporting extended reading and writing tasks. Since the price for high-function workstations continues to drop, CMU will recommend that students buy such machines.

Besides access, a continuing problem that plagues educational computing at CMU and elsewhere remains hardware/software incompatibility. Because the program's textbook, Arguing From Sources, is printed on paper, everyone in the country will have access. Because of hardware and software incompatibility, the same cannot be said of the computer tools.

These tools run on Andrew, a system designed to maximize portability to different hardware. As a result, they run on IBMRT-PCs, SUN 2s and 3s, and DEC VAX-stations. Its designers remain committed to the idea that educational software should be as portable as books-an idea that seems a long way off as CMU faces another influx of incompatible hardware and software.

What Do You Have To Send Others And How Do They Get It?

The program produced a textbook based on the four standard writing tasks central to the WARRANT project: summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and contributing. The book, Arguing From Sources: Exploring Issues Through Reading and Writing, D.S. Kaufer, C. Geisler, and C.M. Neuwirth (Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1989), is described by its authors as "one of the fruits of the project, with goals of conducting research, building a curriculum, and designing a computer system to support the reading and writing of issue-centered argument."

Another book, Reading and Writing with Andrew: An Instructor's Guide, is intended for faculty not directly involved with this project. It was distributed to all English faculty and graduate teaching fellows in the fall 1988 semester. The book provides teachers with a guide to using the software and other Andrew facilities for teaching reading and writing. The computer programs have received some outside distribution. For example, the University of California at Berkeley recently used Notes in a writing course for junior and senior engineers for several terms.

Those who would like to obtain the Notes or Comments programs should contact:
ICEC-WARE
CDEC Offices, Bldg. "B"
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Technical reports about the program, such as An Instructor's Guide mentioned above, are available from:
Christine M. Neuwirth
Center for Educational Computing in English
CC Technical Reports
Department of English
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-268-8702

What Has Happened To The Program Since The Grant Ended?

CMU maintains the view that computer-based tools hold the potential to achieve revolutionary improvements for students learning to read and write and for their teachers. It continues to support the staff of the Center for Educational Computing in English required to maintain and enhance the software tools, to train new users and to answer users' questions. In addition, this staff provides support to schools that are Center members (and other schools for a small service fee) that wish to use the tools at their campuses.

The course associated with the project, 76-122 Reading and Writing Arguments, continues to be taught, usually with three sections. Now that the textbook is published, the course will become part of the core language, culture and history breadth requirement for all English majors.

The project has spin-off initiatives under way, especially in designing a second version of Comments, and has received support for this purpose from the National Science Foundation and from a local private foundation.

[University of California] [Table of Contents] [Depaul University]