More than twenty years ago, Hayes and Flower (1980) proposed a first model (one probably should use the term "blue print") about the nature and the architecture of writing processes and the implied representations underlying text writing activity. They distinguished three major processes, corresponding to the three main stages of writing: Planning, Translating and Reviewing. The dynamics of the activity are postulated as sequential, with possible recursion, according to the considered phase of production (implying a process called Monitor). Within this model, Planning serves to establish an outline of the content of the text to be written (things to say, to whom, in what order, how), which implies retrieving content from memory (Generating), and Organizing this content in function of the instruction and the writer's communicative and processing goals (Goal setting). The Translating process serves to semantically develop each part of the plan and translation into linguistically elaborated sentences. Reviewing, finally, implies rereading what has been written and eventually modifying (Editing) the text content and/or form.
In this context, Wang (2015) supported the positive impacts of collaborativewriting after using wikis as he found that students who participated in the collaborativewriting tasks improved in business writing and valued the challenge of this activity. Furthermore, the findings also indicated that wikis stimulate students’ interest while learning a language and enhance the development of their writing abilities. Besides, Aydin & Yildiz (2014) also revealed that after the use of wiki-based collaborativewriting tasks students believed that their writing performance had a development, and they had positive practices during writing. Furthermore, Lin (2014) explored students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward collaborativewriting using wikis. Findings revealed that students demonstrated a development in students’ writing attitudes after using collaboration treatment. Moreover, the study also found that students showed a higher interest in collaborativewriting compared to writing on a traditional paper. Li & Kim (2016) examined two ESL groups’ interactions during two collaborativewriting tasks that used wikis. Results showed that the two ESL groups working on the same writing tasks and wikis had extremely different strategies of collaboration and that there was a change in patterns occurred across two tasks. They discussed these aspects in connection with the scaffolding flexibility taking place within small collaborative groups.
A limitation of present study is the challenge to con- trol all variables in an on-line collaborative discussion. By the design of a structured discussion task a certain control of variables is achieved. Despite of this struc- tured discussion, it can not be excluded that students’ performance in course may have influenced them to re- vise their paper. However, this phenomenon likely has played a minor role since it concerned last year medical students with a comparable knowledge level. Moreover, all students participating in the present study performed several critical appraisals during the previous four years of the medical curriculum, and thus can be considered to be experienced in writing a CAT paper. Therefore, it was expected that participants may not have felt great urgency to discuss the task. It thus is remarkable that, even after intensive training the skill in performing a CAT, 51% of the students revised their paper after col- laborative online discussion. Therefore, students can profit by a peer discussion of their papers, irrespective whether they revise or not revise their paper [9,10]. Be- sides the effect of discussion with peers, other factors could have influenced students to revise the CAT paper. First, since students participated voluntarily in this study they were probably highly motivated to discuss with peers. Secondly, it can be emphasized that motivation for discussion is high because this critical appraisal task was related to a self-selected, authentic clinical problem. Even though it cannot be excluded that the discussion it- self could stimulate students to discuss.
One important aspect of intelligent agents is their potential ability to learn from their in- teractions with a person. Maulsby et al.  used WOZ to look at this learning process by exploring how people would teach their virtual helper. How pedagogical agents can be used in a virtual learning environment and its influence on group-work was the motivation for a WOZ study conducted by Jondahl and Mørch , and in particular looking at when and how an intelligent advisory system should present feedback Mavrikis and Gutierrez-Santos  found that contextual information plays a crucial role in effective advice giving. They com- pared three levels of simulation. First, they had the advice giver (facilitator) sitting next to the students. Using this set-up students and facilitator shared the same information space. In a sec- ond stage, the facilitator was located in a different room and used a remote desktop system (i.e. open WOZ set-up) to communicate with the students. In this set-up many communicational cues such as the student’s face or his/her gestures were lost. Finally, Mavrikis and Gutierrez- Santos used a fully automated advice system that was built upon the results of the previous experiment stages to give advice. They concluded that contextual information is of great im- portance if one aims at giving effective advice and consequently optimises a student’s learning progress. WOZ is an efficient method for building the relevant computer models supporting this agent behaviour (Mavrikis et al. ; Rizzo et al. ). Similarly, Tsovaltzi et al.  and Braun and Rummel  argue that an efficient tutoring system needs to adapt to a students progress. That is, adaptive and context-specific feedback is necessary to direct a learner’s interactions with an interactive learning environment to useful ends. Also here both research teams employed a human wizard to learn the relevant cues.
study, not all of the participants attended all training days (resulting in varying degrees of freedom for the analyses reported in section 5). Furthermore, 9 in-service teachers dropped out of the course. This observation is in line with average dropout rates in German adult education (Nuissl, 2010). Because the knowledge convergence of learners dropping out of courses is hardly practically relevant and we were interested in knowledge convergence during genuine participation in entire courses, we excluded these participants from all analyses. Hence, our findings pertain to the knowledge convergence among pre- and in- service teachers who complete courses involving computer-supportedcollaborative case- based learning. The completion rates may differ between these two groups, but the feature of course completion is held constant across them.
ComputerSupportedCollaborative Learning and WEB 2.0 technologies and wikis As part of the Australian Federal Government’s Digital Education Revolution (DER) all pre- service teachers need to develop both understanding and competency in embedding ICT into the content areas by developing their Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Department of Education, 2008). A government scoping study indicates that the most common forms of ICT currently used in classrooms are PowerPoint and basic Internet searches, such as WebQuests. These forms of ICT do not make best use of the learning potential of ICT (Education Services Australia, 2010). This study is underpinned by the development of education policies within Australia that stipulate that all pre-service science teachers, upon graduation, need to be able to use ICT to teach inquiry in the classroom. The 2011 IScience program aimed to develop appropriate technological, pedagogical and content knowledge to enable pre-service teachers to select, evaluate and use technologies to support inquiry learning in the classroom. Revisions were made to the structure and approach of the program, including the introduction of wikis, which was done in consideration of the enactment of Australian government policies pertaining to the embedding of ICT in science education.
In their original version, VDSs replicated the operational status of the traditional DS, but this time, in a different medium; all design processes, such as tutorials and desk- crits, were preserved. Students were still required to work in groups -by now comprised of students from different universities- and provide design solutions and artifacts, phys- ical or virtual. The only difference lay in the fact that tutors experimented with the co- horts ’ cultural diversity and systematically encouraged structured collaborative practices toward a new type of practitioner with efficient communication skills to handle diver- sity and design for distant projects. A new understanding of openness was gradually in- stilled by lifting the communication barriers among institutions, while the ability to bring students together from completely different cultural backgrounds, −despite the complexity of the endeavor,- enriched the educational experience for those involved in the process (Kvan 1997). In addition, VDSs invited students to reconsider the meaning of external sources of knowledge (Griegson, 2004), which was a major step forward in renegotiating the conditions for the construction of knowledge in the DS.
In the present study, wikis were used as an additional element in F2F courses, with the aim of improving collaborative learning, as well as encouraging the use of technology-based teaching/learning tools by pre-service teachers. Each student was assigned one lesson (according to her choice) that she was expected to summarize, adding relevant information from academic literature or any other available source. The other students were then asked to read this summary and make any relevant comments. Finally, the presenting student had to rewrite the original document, taking into account her peers' comments. This worked well, with most students performing the task easily once they had learned how to use the site and become accustomed to the idea of editing their peers' work. During the two years of this action research cycle the students' wiki pages were analyzed in an attempt to comprehend their learning processes. Of particular significance were their comments regarding peers' texts, as these seemed to be the most indicative of their thinking and learning processes. The following are examples of students' comments on their peers' texts; pseudonyms are used throughout to ensure students' anonymity:
Energy savings and efficient energy use have become the objects of common concern for individuals, experts and administrations. In de veloped countries, it is known that optimum conversion of final energy into useful energy cannot be achieved without continuing efforts on the part of management I5I, 161, I7I. Energy management starts with the commitment and the support of top executives structure in an organization. If energy management is to become effective and successful, it has to be organized and supported in the same way as other profit management centers are.
The author's group has also examined the possibility of automated assessment in collaboration with a machine learning expert (Rosé and Borge, in press). The current method of discourse evaluation proved too difficult for a computer to reliably compute without a human in the loop. The computer was extremely reliable at coding line-by-line posts, but aggregating these micro-codes to assess the bigger patterns of communication could only be reliably done for specific populations after calibration with a human coder to. However, it might be possible to automate some aspects of the assessment to reduce time spent by the instructor and also increase instructor awareness of teams that are in need of extra coaching and support.
Quantity of the Overall Information. Quantity of the overall information that participants presented was measured through the number of idea units. In the context of the present study, it was imperative to found a definition that would provide some tangible norms for detecting idea units in texts that would allow the instructor to analyze the writings of the participants in a consistent manner. To this end, the instructor adopted Hildyard and Hidi (1985) definition of idea units which includes a clause containing a main verb, subject, and objects plus modifiers and measured quantity of the overall information in the participants’ writing through measuring mean length of idea units. In addition, the instructor used Chafe’s (1985) definition which encompasses that two or more idea units can be combined into one sentence, by using “(a) dependent clauses conjoined by a different coordinating conjunctions such as after, although, as, as if, if, in order to and so forth; (b) appositives; and (c) participial clauses” (p. 107). Chafe suggests these three constructs are to be considered as separate idea units. Conversely, if a complement or restrictive relative clause is used or an indirect question or indirect quotation is used, these belong to the idea unit presented by the main clause. In Chafe’s words, “dependent clauses, appositives, and participial clauses are separate idea units” (p.107). The measures of syntactic complexity, vocabulary complexity, and quantity of overall information were presented with continuous scores; thus, they were analyzed using three independent t-tests.
In my second example of collaboration with performers, the question is in many ways simpler and clearer. I was talking to the poet and broadcaster Ian McMillan about writing something, and we decided to write an opera. Ian is a performance poet, and his writing is more or less indivisible from his very distinctive voice. He has a radio programme on BBC Radio 3, the national classical music and arts channel, and is loved by audiences for his informal and warm delivery, his infectious enthusiasm for often complex intellectual ideas. He also has a pronounced South Yorkshire accent, so it immediately prompted the question whether we could write an opera in Ian’s own accent. This may seem like a simple matter; but opera training in any country tends rigorously to enforce particular pronunciations felt to be variously ‘correct’, ‘educated’, or ‘standard’. In English, for example, Kathryn LaBouff’s Singing and Communicating in English (2007) discusses several examples of regional variants, yet Northern English accents are not mentioned at all. Anecdotally, trained opera singers respond that the Northern accent is “not possible to sing in” because the vowels are too short, too flat, not Italienate enough. Obviously this is nonsense, since it’s possible to sing operatically in hundreds of languages throughout the world. Northern English vowels do tend towards the short – we pronounce N [bath] rather than S [bath], but not all of them. Lancashire and Yorkshire accents tend to use a long monophthong [train] which is the same vowel as German Tränenregen. Many more examples exist where the demands of language intelligibility would have an impact on word setting. In Hungarian, Estonian and Finnish, for example, there is an important difference between long vowels and short vowels.
CW has several advantages over single-author writing. In a survey by Noël and Robert (2004), the participants agreed that CW resulted in richer documents owing to diverse ideas and input from co-authors with different expertise. In theory, CW should also take less time since the authors produce the text simultaneously. Also, if each section is written by the relevant expert in the team, it is likely that the text will be better and more accurate. Participants of the same survey, however, had also pointed out the disadvantages of CW including difficult group management and coordination (Noël and Robert, 2004), and documents that are poorly structured. Extra coordination is needed in CW, especially when the authors are geographically dispersed. The team leader may need to edit the sections contributed by the authors so that they fit into the document. All this could lead to an increase
Other aspects strengthened by the technology were the recording and monitoring of the writing process by using the history tool available on the blogging platform. On the one hand, this allowed the authors – the students – to access successive versions of the essays written with the DWT; it also allowed them to rearrange the path of written production, from tasks associated with the planning stages to those associated with the final text. On the other, the tutor’s feedback and suggestions were automatically saved in the history for each progressive stage and version of the text. Access to tracked changes, supported by online resources, fostered the authors’ individual and collective metacognitive reflection. It was therefore possible to systematically and entirely assess the most complex tasks and the scaffolding required in the didactic design to help the students overcome specific difficulties in certain parts of the text.
West Virginia University also uses the WAC approach, but the school incorporates Writing to Learn (WTL) techniques by requiring students to maintain an engineer’s log. The engineer’s log is essentially a journal that is comprised of both directed entries and open entries. Maharaj and Banta explain that the students are required to write weekly open discussions in the log outlining their thoughts on the class, problems they are having, study notes, or anything else that relates to the class. The open discussions are a minor part of the engineer’s log; the students must also complete specific assignments for the log including chapter summaries, analogies, explanations, and word problems. While the logs are not graded on the students’ writing ability or grammar skills, they are graded on the student’s ability to analyze technical concepts with different approaches and provide descriptions of their processes, thereby reinforcing their communication skills. Although Maharaj and Banata’s research did not produce statistical evidence, they note that anecdotal testimony indicates that students found the engineer’s log applicable to their future goals and beneficial in improving their overall written communication skills.
With this in mind, we adopt Bednar’s (n.d.) definition of academic writing as formal writing that implies great effort to construct coherent and well argumented texts whose production is difficult for the writer, but easier for the reader. “Academic writing encompasses a range of approaches and types of practice for it that requires various techniques to train student writers” (Jordan as cited in Rodríguez, 2004, p. 19). We can connect this quote to the previous idea in the sense that certainly we need to work on academic writing to bridge the gap we have had between writing and other skills in English as a foreign language (EFL) teaching. We also need to become acquainted with those techniques in order to train ourselves on how to teach writing at a higher level and assure students succeed in this skill.
Abstract. This paper addresses our system which provides an effective method to write an English paper suitable for international conferences and analyze the system’s pros and cons through the user’s data collected from operating the system for 6 months. The system consists of Korean-English paper MT module supported by user interaction environment. Our original Korean-English paper MT system was quite useful for understanding, but not satisfactory for writing. So, we analyzed our system to trace what caused such dissatisfaction. We classified the analysis results into three main categories, that is, the errors in the source sentence itself, the errors of our MT system, and the absence of the appropriate domain-specific expression information. For each category we provide an alternative method and show the effectiveness through analyzing the user’s data. We can confirm that our system can be used quite usefully for paper writing.
We believe this work bridges a gap in existing collaborativewriting tools. At the moment, these tools handle syntactic conflicts excellently but do not address semantic problems that arise as a result of misaligned contributions by the various authors. RST plays a pivotal role in encouraging authors to think about the underlying logical relationships in their document and the consequences of updates. We realize that appending RST information is not easy and can be seen as cumbersome. However, with more research and experimental evaluation, the process can be made simpler and seamlessly integrated into current tools. We are working now on the definition of an ontology based on the RST and we will use Web Ontology Language (OWL) to detect the violation of RST properties.
writing process effectively. Finally students’ work in composing a text will better and better and can be easily read by readers (Barkely F. Elizabeth et., al. 2005). Collaborativewriting process can refer to about how groups or pairs provide feedback to each other, what they search for help from each other, and how they discuss and negotiate strategies in pointing writing concerns (e.g., how to mark a missing citation) (Kessler, Grek, et.al, 2012). The purpose of the collaborativewriting does not only produce final product but also construct meaning in collaboration to achieve higher quality of product. The revising and editing processes are mutual relationship to the learning process. The most practical way teachers provide feedback to students’ errors and monitor them in working in group (Shin WanTeow, 2014).
In the early 1990s I carried out a light-hearted experiment in collaborative story writing with a group of high school students in Wales. I used a Darwinian process, whereby each writer could chose to add their new story segment to any one of any of the previous story segments written by any of the authors including themselves. The game proceeded through a series of generations with each writer adding a new story segment to one of the story lines that was still in existence in the previous generations. Some storylines died out because no one subsequently added to them, and others proliferated with many new storylines