The effects of a theory‐based summary writing tool on students' summary writing

• Published in: Journal of computer assisted learning 2019-06, Vol.35 (3), p.435-449
• Main Authors: Chew, Chiou Sheng, Idris, Norisma, Loh, Er Fu, Wu, Wen‐Chi Vivian, Chua, Yan Piaw, Bimba, Andrew Thomas
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cognitive load; Cognitive Processes; Computer Uses in Education; Control Groups; Difficulty Level; Documentation; Educational Environment; Educational Technology; English language; English proficiency; Language Proficiency; Language thought relationship; Learning; Learning environment; Learning theories; Program Effectiveness; Students; Teaching; Teaching Methods; Undergraduate Students; Writing; Writing (Composition); Writing Instruction; Writing Skills
• ISSN: 0266-4909; 1365-2729
• DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12349

This paper focuses on the design and evaluation of a theory‐based computer‐assisted summary writing learning environment called Summary Writing‐PAL (SW‐PAL). The SW‐PAL was developed based on four aspects: summarizing strategies, learning theories, prior knowledge, and cognitive load. A quasi‐experiment that involved 58 undergraduates majoring in Computer Science was conducted to examine the effectiveness of SW‐PAL in writing summaries. Two intact classes were selected with 28 and 30 students in control and experimental groups, respectively. The conventional teaching approach was employed in the control group, whereas the SW‐PAL was introduced to the experimental group. Pretest and posttest were administrated to both groups. The findings indicated that SW‐PAL improved students' summary writing performance. A significant variance was noted between intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load among students with varying levels of English proficiency in the experimental group, signifying that the SW‐PAL is more suitable for students with lower language proficiency. Lay Description What is already known about this topic: Currently, there has been a lot of interest in CAL English language and numerous summary writing tools have been developed for language learning and teaching. Existing summary writing tools did not focus on learning theories incorporation. Worked examples approach is effective in well‐defined domain (mathematics, physics, etc.), how about if apply in ill‐defined domain (summary writing)? What this paper adds: Design and develop a CAL environment for summary writing. Incorporate learning theories in CAL environment. Apply worked example instructional approach in learning summary writing. Implications for practice and/or policy: Conventional teaching versus CAL environment in summary writing: CAL environment achieved better performance. Worked examples in ill‐defined domain (summary writing) are also effective in language learning. Worked examples is more effective for lower English language proficiency students. Cognitive load: Lower language proficiency students demonstrated lower cognitive load when using CAL environment.