What is the best way to learn another language?
the research topic is
What is the best way to learn another language?
This request is mainly for DR Clover because this is part two of it
Repeatedly Answering Questions That Elicit Inquiry-Based Thinking Improves Writing
Phanikiran Radhakrishnan, Ulrich Schimmack, and Dianne Lam
Participants engaged in inquiry by practicing how to answer questions about a joumal article. Inquiry improves writing by helping one leam more about the topic at hand. Practice improves performance only if leamers know how to perform a task accurately (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) and answering questions trains them on the best way to engage in inquiry. We implemented an inquiry-based writing intervention to show that students who repeatedly answered questions wrote better after the intervention than before and when compared to those who did not participate in the intervention.
"Writing today is not a frill for the few, but an essential skill for the many" (The Na- tional Commission on Writing, 2003). How should teachers help students significantly develop this skill? Our paper identifies key features that writing activities should have with a field study that was part of an initia- tive sponsored by a psychology department to improve student writing.
Teaching students how to leam improves how they write (see Graham & Perin, 2007; Hillocks, 1986 formeta-analyses). Learning, or inquiring, about phenomena involves describing, defining, hypothesizing (i.e., argumentation) and deriving generalizations (i .e., analysis ; Hillocks ,1982). Such strategies enable understanding phenomena leading to writing improvements (Hillocks, 1986). We designed inquiry-based writing activities and tested whether they improved writing (Hypothesis 1).
We also examined if the way students engaged in inquiry-based writing activities could have an impact. Students answered
Phanikiran Radhakrishnan, Department of Management, University of Toronto at Scarbor- ough. Ulrich Schimmack,Department of Psychol- ogy, University of Toronto Mississauga. Dianne Lam, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto at Scarborough.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Phanikiran Radhakrishnan at [email protected]
questions that help them engage in each inquiry-based strategy or followed instruc- tions . For example, a question used to engage argumentation was "What results support Hypothesis X?" whereas an instruction was "Present at least one piece of evidence for Hypothesis X". Further, because these ways (or designs) vary in how much they clarify the demands of each inquiry-based strategy, they should vary in their impact on writing quality. Questions should be more effective than instructions because questions focus students' attention on the relevant features of each strategy, increasing students' un- derstanding of what is required from them in each strategy (Hypothesis 2). Research shows that multiple-choice items framed as questions were less difficult than those framed as non-questions, which were harder to understand (Dudycha & Carpenter, 1973), more confusing and ambiguous (Violato & Marini, 1989). Similarly, Lawson, Bodle, Houlette, and Haubner (2006) show that students leam best when they write answers to questions while viewing educational videos because questions mandate students to think deeply about them.
We also hypothesized that practice should improve writing (Hypothesis 3). Prac- tice improves writing (Johnstone,Ashbaugh, & Warfield, 2002) because it helps acquire skills needed to do the task and procedures required to execute them (Ericsson, Krampe,
247
248/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 4
& Tesch-Romer, 1993). Thus, we combined the practice conditions with the different designs of writing activities. Students who answered questions while engaging in each type of inquiry got repeated opportunities to practice whereas those who received instmc- tions got only one opportunity to practice each type of inquiry and those in the control group did not receive any.
We also explored the efficacy of provid- ing students with both instmctions and ques- tions . This group, compared to the group that received only questions enabled us to test, in part, the separate effects of instructions and questions. We predicted that repeated opportunities for practice will only improve writing if we provided students with an ef- fective strategy on how to do the writing task well. Giving students questions or providing them with both questions and instructions would teach them the best method to do the task, leading to similar improvements in wdting when compared to the group that only received instmctions (Hypothesis 4).
Method Participants
Participants (N=94) were undergraduate students in one of four, third-year psychology courses. Two instmctors teaching two courses each participated in our study. One instructor randomly chose one course to be the control group. The other three courses were exped- mental groups. We did not collect gender or age information because asking for it was not part of students' regular course activities and were not pertinent to our hypotheses. We asked for students' consent to use their coursework for research'.
Measures Two independent, trained raters assessed
the quality of summaries wdtten before and afterthe intervention .All participants summa- rized journal articles pertinent to the course^. Each summary was assessed on content (e .g.,
gives accurate, concrete and relevant details about the results that support the hypothesis), grammar (e.g., consistency of tense within a sentence) and stmcture (e.g., no transition statement between paragraphs).
For rater training the first author and the two raters graded 30 randomly selected summades and discussed inconsistencies. All three then graded 30 additional summades after which they reached an inter-rater reli- ability of .70. The two raters then marked the remaining summades^
Procedure Based on Hillocks (1982), we designed
activities that would engage students in in- quiry (i.e., descdption, definition, argumen- tation and analysis)"*. The intervention was conducted dudng a semester. All participants completed summades before and after the intervention as part of their course grade^. Participants in the first experimental group were given "Instmctions" to complete four wdting assignments that allowed them to practice once, each of the four inquiry-based strategies (Single Tdal Practice with Instmc- tions Group). Participants in the second expedmental group were given "Questions" to complete nine wdting assignments that allowed them to practice repeatedly, all of the four inquiry-based strategies (Repeated Practice with Questions Group). Participants in the third expedmental group (Hybrid Group) received the manipulations of both the first and second expedmental groups. They were given (a) Instructions to complete four wdting assignments that allowed them to practice once, each of the four inquiry- based strategies and (b) Questions to com- plete five wdting assignments that allowed them to practice repeatedly all of the four inquiry-based strategies. Participants in the Repeated Practice with Questions Group had the same number of assignments as those in the Hybdd Group.
Inquiry-Based Thinking.. / 249
Results The inter-rater reliability of the two inde-
pendent raters was .77 when collapsed across content, grammar, and stmcture. Therefore, we used an overall measure of writing qual- ity collapsed across the three dimensions in our analyses.
To test if those who received any type of inquiry-based writing intervention (i .e., ques- tions or instmctions) wrote better summaries than those who did not (i.e.. Hypothesis 1), we combined all experimental groups and compared them with the control group. We conducted a planned contrast between the pre and post-intervention summaries for these two groups. Supporting Hypothesis 1, the post-intervention summaries were significantly better for the combined ex- perimental groups (Mp̂ =̂ 6.86,Mp^ |̂= 7.27; i(74) = 3.456,p < .002') when compared to the control group (M _.̂ = 6.46, M ^^- 6.67), which was not significant. Thus, students who did not get any type of writing intervention did not improve.
To test Hypothesis 2, we combined the two groups who received questions and compared them with the group that received instmctions. We conducted a planned contrast between the pre and post-intervention for the two groups. As predicted by Hypothesis 2, the post-intervention summaries were signifi- cantly better for the combined experimental groups that received questions (M ^̂ = 6.57, Mp̂ ,̂= 7.25; i(45) = 4.420,p < .OÔI) when compared to the group receiving instmctions (Mp̂ =̂ 6.97, M^^^= 7.06) which was not significant. Thus, those who received ques- tions wrote better summaries than those who received instmctions.
Hypothesis 3 states that those who had repeated opportunities to practice would write better summaries than those who had one opportunity to practice who would, in tum, write better summaries than those who had none. Hypothesis 4 predicted that given repeated opportunities to practice, students who received only questions would write
Figure 1. Group differences in quality of writing.
Quality of
s.s-
BPre DPost
Control Instructions Only Single Trial
Questions Only Instructions Repeated
Questions
Condition
250/ Journal of Instwctional Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 4
summaries of similar quality as those who received both instructions and questions and that both of these groups would be better than those who only received instructions. To test these hypotheses, we performed a 4 x 2 mixed-design Analysis of Variance*.
We found a significant interaction between the type of experimental group and the type of measure (i.e., pre vs. post- intervention): F{3,90) = 3.03,p < .04, rj^ = .06. Post-hoc t-tests demonstrated that this effect was for the Repeated Practice with Questions Group if 22) = 2.62,;? < .02 and the Hybrid Group i(22) = 3.58,/? < .003. Thus, partially supporting Hypothesis 3, students who had repeated opportunities to practice wrote better summaries after the interven- tion than those who had one opportunity to practice. However, those who had only one opportunity to practice did not write better summaries than those who had none. More important, as predicted by Hypothesis 4, writing significantly improved (see Figure 1) in both the conditions involving repeated practice with questions (i.e., the Repeated Practice with Questions Group and the Hy- brid Group) but not in the condition involv- ing practice with instructions (Single Trial Practice with Instructions Group).
Discussion We investigated types of writing ac-
tivities that would most improve writing. We designed activities teaching students how to inquire based on previous research (Gra- ham & Perin, 2007; Hillocks, 1986) which suggests inquiry-based activities improves writing because they increase understand- ing. We found, supporting our hypothesis, that inquiry-based writing interventions improved writing.
We further investigated how different designs of inquiry-based writing activities would improve writing. Supporting our hy- pothesis and previous research (Dudycha & Carpenter, 1973; Violato & Marini, 1989), we found that giving students questions to
engage in the inquiry-based strategies is more effective than giving instructions. Questions draw students' attention to the demands of each strategy, increasing their comprehension of how to engage in each strategy.
Next we examined whether the amount of practice could affect writing. We partially sup- ported our hypothesis: groups with repeated opportunities to practice improved the most (see Johnstone et al., 2002 for similar find- ings). Practice enhances performance since it enables the acquisition of skills to do the task and the procedures needed to execute them (Ericsson et al., 1993). However the group with only one opportunity to practice did not do better than the control group that had none. The former group may have had insufficient practice impeding the acquisition of relevant skills and procedures.
Finally, we studied the joint effects ofthe amount of practice and the different designs of writing activities. We demonstrated that groups with repeated practice in answering questions or in answering questions and fol- lowing instructions improved their writing whereas the group with only instructions did not improve. Repeated practice improves performance only if leamers know how to per- form a task accurately (Ericsson et al., 1993). Thus, repeatedly answering questions trains students on the best way to perform the task whereas only following instructions does not.
However the group that received only instructions also had only one opportunity to practice. Because of the naturalized setting of our study, we could not compare students who got repeated opportunities to practice with instructions to those who did so with questions. Nevertheless, controlled laboratory experiments indicate that extended practice leads to enhanced performance only if leamers are given suitable guidelines on how to do the task (see Ericsson et al., 1993 for a review). Such findings further support our reasons for why the groups with repeated opportunities to practice with questions (or with questions and instructions) improved the most. Therefore, we
Inquiry-Based Thinking.. / 251
validated our most important prediction that those who repeatedly practiced with questions would do as well as those who had instruc- tions and questions but better than those who received only instructions.
Although our quasi-experimental study had limitations such as non-randomized se- lection of participating instructors, courses, lack of control for course difficulty and par- ticipants, it had several strengths. A critical aspect of our study is that we assessed writing before and after the intervention. Showing that students wrote better after than before the intervention, establishes validity for our findings. Second, we conducted our study in a real-world setting using a motivated sample of leamers. Our students completed the activities for their course grade and hence, had an incentive to do them well. They were also from the same department and institu- tion, varying only in whether or not they participated in courses with the intervention. Thus, we addressed a number of shortcom- ings identified by Johnstone et al. (2002) in studies on writing improvement'. Finally, by examining the role of practice we contribute to an under-investigated aspect of research on writing skill development (Kellogg & Raulerson, 2007). To conclude, our study clarifies the features of writing activities that would improve writing: engage students in inquiry, require repeated practice, and involve the answering of questions.
References Dudycha, A. L., & Carpenter, J. B. (1973).
Effects of item format on item discrimination and difficulty [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58,116-121.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T, & Tesch- Romer,C.( 1993).Theroleof deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance [Electronic version]. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New Kor̂ . Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Hillocks,G., Jr. (1982). Inquiry and the com- posing process: Theory and research [Electronic version]. Coilege English, 44,659-673.
Hillocks, G.,h. (1986). Research on written composition : New directions for teach / «g. Ill i nois : National Conference on Research in English.
Johnstone,K.M.,Ashbaugh,H.,&Warfield, T. D. (2002). Effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college stu- dents' writing skills [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 305-315.
Kellogg,R.T.,&Raulerson,B.A.,III.(2007). Improving the writing skills of college students [Electronic version]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 237-242.
Lawson, T. J., Bodle, J. H., Houlette, M. A., & Haubner, R. R. (2006). Guiding questions enhance student leaming from educational videos [Electronic version]. Teaching of Psychology, 55,31-33.
The National Commission on Writing: In America's Schools and Colleges. (2003, April). The neglected "R": The need for a writing revo- lution. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http:// www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/ writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
Violato, C , & Marini, A. E. (1989). Effects of stem orientation and completeness of multiple- choice items on item difficulty and discrimination [Electronic version]. Educational and Psychologi- cal Measurement, 49,287-295.
Footnotes 'AH students' summaries were photocopied
before they were graded by the course Teaching Assistant. We used these copies for our analyses.
-Directions for the written summaries were: Your assignment is to summarize the article. Your summary should be 400 to 500 words long. Your summary should include enough detail so that the reader understands the theoretical background, major research questions or hypotheses, methods, results, and implications. This summary is much like an abstract, but is slightly longer.
'During practice and actual rounds of grad- ing, the first author and raters were blind to the conditions of each summary (pre/post, experi- mental/control) and the summaries were assessed randomly.The only identifying information on the summaries was the student numbers.
"•Descriptive writing demands narrating only concrete and relevant details of the empirical
252/Journal of instructional Psychology, Voi. 38, No. 4
findings on a hypothesis. Definition entails iden- tifying essential features of a variable, providing examples of it, and comparing and contrasting it with a variable that it is typically confused with it (e.g., compare extraversion with agreeableness). Argumentative writing requires an explanation for why there is evidence for and against a hypothesis. Analytical writing entails the use of evidence to make informed generalizations and derive em- pirically testable hypotheses (cf. Hillocks, 1982).
'Participants in all the experimental groups completed all the writing assignments as part of their course grade and received feedback after each.
Participants in the control group only received feedback after the pre-intervention summary and did not complete any of the intervening writing activities that the experimental groups did.
'The pre and post-intervention measures were the 2-level within-subjects factor. The between- subjects factors were the three experimental groups and the one control group.
^They involve samples from different institu- tions that vary in the type of writing interventions they have, the student population, and the amount and style of feedback.
Copyright of Journal of Instructional Psychology is the property of Educational Innovations and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Copyright of Journal of Instructional Psychology is the property of Educational Innovations and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.