Discussion
This study compared the
effects of computer-based concept mapping with paper-and-pencil concept
mapping as a prewriting strategy for middle school students’ persuasive
writing. Examination of the students’ concept maps revealed the
students in the computer-based concept mapping condition generated more
ideas than those in the paper-and-pencil concept mapping condition.
This outcome supports the findings of the studies by Anderson-Inman
et al. (1998) and Ditson et al. (2001) that brainstorming through an
electronic method is beneficial for rapid, legible, and organized generation
of ideas.
In addition, the students
in the computer-based concept mapping condition produced better total
quality concept maps than the students in the paper-and-pencil concept
mapping condition. Previous studies of computer-based concept mapping
(Dabbagh, 2001; Okebukola & Atkinson, 1992; Jonassen et al., 1998;
Jonassen et al., 1997) have shown that computer-based concept mapping
can serve as a cognitive tool that enhances students thinking, develops
students’ problem-solving and reasoning skills, and helps to transfer
these skills to a set of similar problems. In concert with these studies,
the present investigation showed that computer-based concepts maps,
when compared to paper-and-pencil concept maps, enhanced the students’
prewriting argument structure in terms of the quality of the students’
thesis statements. This approach also improved the quantity and quality
of the relationships between reasons and examples and the quality of
the planned attention getters. The present findings also extend those
of the previous investigations to language arts classrooms where middle
school students are engaged in thinking and reasoning in preparation
for a persuasive writing task.
In conjunction with the
differences in concept mapping between the treatment conditions, we
found both the number of ideas generated and the total quality of the
students’ concept maps were influenced by their teachers. Sinatra
(2000) has advocated the use of a scaffolding design or map template
when concept maps are used for prewriting purposes. Hence, as part of
their training, the teachers for both concept mapping conditions in
the present study were provided with a map template for a persuasive
argument structure and were asked to train their students to follow
the map template during their prewriting. Inspection of the students’
concept maps suggested that the locus of the difference between the
two teachers under the two mapping conditions was due to how closely
their students had followed the persuasive writing concept map template.
The students who followed the template had higher quality concept maps
and generated more ideas than the students who did not, particularly
in the computer-based concept mapping condition. The results support
Sinatra’s (2000) advocacy of the use of map templates. Clearly
also, as noted by Novak and Gowin (1984) and Ferry, Hedber, and Harper
(1997), the integration of concept mapping tools in the classroom requires
careful instruction.
Finally, we examined the
effects of computer-based concept mapping versus paper-and-pencil concept
mapping on the quality of the middle school students’ persuasive
writing. Contrary to our expectation, students in the paper-and-pencil
condition obtained higher persuasive writing scores than the students
in the computer-based concept mapping condition. This finding is troublesome
in light of the fact that the students in the computer-based concept
mapping condition were better prepared for the persuasive writing task
in terms of both the quantity and the quality of their prewriting preparation.
The unexpected result might
have been due to how the students allocated their time during the phases
of the writing task. The task of persuasive writing is highly linguistically
and cognitively demanding (Knudson, 1992, Nippold, 2000). Not only must
students be prepared to write persuasively, they must also have sufficient
time to produce their essays with careful attention to the mechanical
and linguistic aspects of their writing. In this study, the students
in the computer-based mapping condition spent four minutes more on average
in prewriting than did the students in the paper-and-pencil mapping
condition. This may have been due in part to the longer time needed
for keyboarding compared to hand writing (presumably the latter would
be faster for most students). In addition, the fun of using the computer
software for the prewriting activity may have distracted and delayed
some students from the persuasive writing task itself. Because it was
important to keep the total amount of time constant for both of the
treatment conditions in this study, the entire persuasive writing task
was constrained to ninety minutes, which is also the time limit set
for the state’s Direct Writing Assessment for middle school students.
However, this meant the students in the computer-based concept mapping
condition may have spent less time in their actual writing of their
persuasive essays than the students in the paper-and-pencil concept
mapping condition, which may have led to the difference in their persuasive
writing scores.
The unexpected result might
also have been due to the criteria used to judge the quality of the
students’ persuasive writing. In this investigation, we employed
the state rubric for persuasive writing required for middle school students.
Although the rubric employs holistic writing categorizations, it specifies
focused criteria as the basis for the categorizations. The focused criteria
called for the assessment of many factors such as spelling, punctuation,
word choice, grammar, use of figurative language, the overall ease of
reading, and whether the details and examples were interesting. Unfortunately,
the logical development of the argument was addressed as only a single
criterion. Almost no credit was given in the state rubric for the number
of ideas the students used to support their persuasive arguments or
for the quality of the relationships between the students’ reasons
and examples offered in support of their positions on the issues. Hence,
in general, the criteria focused more on the mechanics and the surface
linguistic aspects of writing than on the quality of the students’
persuasive argument structures and critical reasoning in support of
their arguments. Zipprich (1995) found the use of a concept map as a
prewriting activity did not make a difference to students’ sentence
structure or to the mechanics of their writing, although it did enhance
their writing in terms of the components of a good story. Clearly, the
state rubric used in this investigation may not have given the students
sufficient credit for the key elements of their persuasive writing preparation
that were enhanced by the computer-based concept mapping format.
Further investigation is
needed to explore the effects of computer-based concept mapping as a
prewriting strategy for persuasive essays using different writing assessment
rubrics. For example, Toulmin’s (1958) criteria may better capture
the nature of persuasive writing. Unfortunately, even if computer-based
concept maps are shown to have a positive effect on persuasive writing
when different scoring criteria are used, it is unlikely teachers will
decide to take the time to use computer-based concept mapping if they
are primarily accountable for their students’ writing performance
quality when scored using the state’s rubric. Hillocks (2002)
has termed this problem as “the testing trap,” whereby state
assessments control both students’ learning and teachers’
writing instruction.
About
the Author
Shu-Yuan Lin
is a visiting instructor and coordinator of the Instructional Materials
Center in the College of Education at Idaho State University. She received
her doctoral degree from Idaho State University in Educational Leadership
with a focus on Instructional Technology. She is past chairperson of
the Applied Foreign Languages Department at Chin Min College in Taiwan.
She also taught English there for several years. Her research interests
include technology integration in language arts and cultural-linguistic
aspects of English language learners.
Send Correspondence to:
|
College
of Education
Box 8059
ISU
Pocatello, ID 83209 |
or |
Email: linshu@isu.edu |
