An analysis of pupils’ reflective writing within a hypermedia framework

1616161616 G. Deadman

© 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1313131313, 16–25

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (1997) 1313131313, 16–25

1616161616

An analysis of pupils� reflective writingwithin a hypermedia framework

G. DeadmanLewisham Professional Development Centre & Crofton Secondary School, London

AbstractAbstractAbstractAbstractAbstract This paper is based on an action research project whichwas undertaken in order to explore further the ways in whichreflective writing supports pupils’ learning. The emphasis here ison one part of the research which involved an analysis of pupils’writing. Twenty four pupils, in one GCSE group, were given twowriting activities. The first activity required pupils to write up theirwork with support from the teacher. The second activity involvedpupils writing up their work with support both from the teacher andfrom a hypermedia reflective writing framework. The writing wasthen analysed sentence by sentence and the results compared. Thiscomparison suggests that there were improvements in pupils’ abilityto reason when they were further supported by a hypermediareflective writing framework.

Keywords: Hypermedia; Reasoning; Reflective writing

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

Language can be the factor which positions pupils differently in the socialhierarchy of the classroom (Stubbs, 1983; Bernstein, 1990). It is common forsome pupils to ask questions in such a way which results in immediate helpfrom a teacher whereas other pupils either don’t know what the questions areor don’t know how to ask them. It follows that teachers have expectations thatsome pupils will ask for and get help whereas others do not. This can lead toteachers having particular expectations of the abilities of pupils. There is astrong relationship between high teacher expectations and effective learning(Stoll & Fink, 1994; Sammons, et al., 1995).

Children’s ability to ask questions in a classroom may be dependent on theirself-perception of their abilities as learners. Negative feelings can form barriersto learning and demotivate children. Two studies have investigated the effecton self-perception of encouraging pupils to reflect on their own thinking (Boud,et al., 1985; Powell, 1994). Pupils were given critical questions such as: Whywas I doing this piece of work? How did I do it? What did I find out? WouldI use a similar approach next time? The questions were designed to encourage

Accepted: 17th November 1996

Correspondence: Gill Deadman, Lewisham Professional Development Centre, Kilmorie Road,London SE23 2SP. Email: [email protected]

Pupils’ reflective writing within a hypermedia framework 1717171717


pupils to think about the learning process itself in the hope that they wouldinternalise them and use them in future in order to become more ‘self-organised’learners. These studies concluded that encouraging pupils to reflect on theirown thinking leads them to having a more positive understanding of themselvesas effective learners with a subsequent improvement in performance on task.

The difficult nature of writing is well known (Vygotsky, 1986). Pupils inschool are often faced with the task of writing, frequently onto blank pieces ofpaper and teachers are not always aware of the difficulties they face. Forexample, a typical school writing task might involve pupils ‘writing up’ at theend of a project. In order to do this pupils have to deconstruct and reconstructthe process of the project in order to make sense of it and write about it. Thisprocess is difficult because it obliges pupils to recreate the situation in order torepresent it to themselves (Vygotsky, op cit.) which demands detachment fromthe actual situation. This ‘detachment’ from the situation is described by Schönas reflecting ‘on the action’. He suggests that professionals in organisationsmost often reflect ‘in the action’ but not on the underlying structures whichframe that action ‘on the action’. He goes on to suggest that reflecting outsideone’s own system of understanding can make individuals feel insecure.Reflective writing, then, is likely to be an activity which both children and adultsfind difficult and one which requires much motivation.

The impact of computers on learning has been the subject of several studies(Gardner, et al., 1993; Johnson, et al., 1994). One small scale study of the impactof computers on pupils’ subject knowledge found computers made no significantdifference (Gardner, op cit.). Nevertheless, some impro-vements were made inpupils’ motivation to engage with their work. A larger scale study (Johnson, opcit.) which investigated the impact of IT on pupils’ learning found that gainswere made in subject knowledge but, most particularly, in higher level processesor thinking. Another study (Rostron, et al., 1994) found that the stimulating,motivating and accessible environment provided by the multimedia featuresof hypermedia enabled a pupil with low cognitive ability to function at a higherlevel than had previously been predicted.

It seems to be clear that reflective writing can improve pupils’ self-percep-tion and that computers can motivate children to learn. This study sought toidentify what combination of the two would have on pupils’ learning.

MethodologyMethodologyMethodologyMethodologyMethodology

The hypermedia stacks *

Two teachers worked together to design the stacks and formulate a set of promptquestions. Both teachers had different teaching backgrounds, one was maths/statistics and one IT with only one of the teachers having had substantialprevious experience of developing reflective writing frameworks† and working

* ‘hypermedia’ describes a multimedia computer database (a ‘stack’) where information islinked via associative connections and where text, sound, graphics and video can be stored.

† ‘framework’ is a term used to describe a set of teacher designed questions which providepupils with a framework in which to critically reflect and write up their work.

1818181818 G. Deadman


with hypermedia. To support children with reading difficulties, some of thequestions were created in sound as well as written form. Photographs of thepupils at work were also incorporated into the stack. The final stack containedabout 10 cards. An example of a hypermedia card with prompt questions isshown in Fig. 1:

Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Fig. 1. Hypermedia card with prompt questions

The writing activitiesTwenty four mixed ability pupils, aged between 14 and 15 years old, spent 10weeks working on a small inquiry project as part of their GCSE Statistics and ITcourse. This course was new in the sense that it sought to integrate twopreviously separate GCSE subjects. The course consisted of 3 hourly lessonsper week. During the first 8 weeks pupils spent time working on the inquiryand writing up their work in the classroom with help from their teacher. Thishelp consisted of the pupils being given a general outline for their writing. Ifpupils needed specific help with their writing they were expected to ask theteacher for it. During the last two weeks of the inquiry pupils spent time writingup their work within a hypermedia reflective writing framework. This workwas done in a computer lab with 21 stand-alone and laptop computers. At theend of the 10 weeks all the work was collected in and one part (out of a possiblefive) was used for the analysis. This part is illustrated by the hypermedia cardin Fig. 1 above.



Analysis of writingThe writing for each pupil was analysed sentence by sentence. Some exclusionswere made in order to make the comparison as fair as possible. Pupils who didnot have work in both the contexts being compared were excluded from theanalysis. Some sentences were also excluded if, for example, the pupil’sreasoning was poor or the sentence had been repeated. Adjustments were alsomade for pupils’ poor use of punctuation and use of full stops. In order toaccount for possible bias, another teacher was asked to analyse a stratifiedsample of pupils’ work. Teachers discussed points of similarity and differenceand some modifications were made in the light of these discussions. The toolused to analyse the data was a systemic network (see Bliss, Monk & Ogborn,1983). This tool proved helpful in the analysis of the text. An illustration of thesystemic network is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.Fig. 2.Fig. 2.Fig. 2.Fig. 2. Systemic network — types of reasoning

Types of reasoningAs illustrated in the systemic network above three main types of reasoningwere identified:

simpleb. description with reasons such as “I like it”

implicativec. if a then b

chaind. if a then b then c

The reasoning types were ordered in what was considered to be a logicalprogression from (a) to (d) in order to see more easily if pupils were movingfrom simple to more complex reasoning. Type (a) was purely descriptive wherethe pupil just made a statement, for example, ‘Our hypothesis is that our school

2020202020 G. Deadman


is a non-racist environment’. Description with reasons such as ‘I like it’. ‘it’sinteresting’, ‘it’s easy’, ‘it’s quicker’, etc. were classed as simple type (b) unlessit was qualified in some way. An example of further qualification which wouldbe classed as implicative type (c) might be ‘ . . . it is interesting and if I findout more about this topic then it might help solve the mystery of who is thesuperior sex’ or ‘if we ask questions of pupils from different cultures then ourresults will not be one sided’. Examples of the language pupils used forreasoning are ‘so’, ‘because’, ‘that’s why’, ‘in which I’, etc. A typical chain type(d) example would be ‘I think the government and school will be interested inmy hypothesis because the government might not be being fair to women andtherefore schools might want to encourage girls to go in for higher paid jobs’.

Examples of the two pieces of writing from one pupil (P1 in Table 1) areshown below. The first piece of writing was completed in the classroom withouta hypermedia reflective writing framework. The second piece was completedin the computer lab with the aid of a hypermedia reflective writing framework.

Choosing my hypothesis (1st attempt by pupil 1)“Our hypothesis is that our school has a non-racist environment. Wechose our hypothesis because it would be interesting to see the results.We also thought it would be easy to collect the data as our populationunder investigation was our school. I think that our hypothesis isprobably true because I haven’t really seen or heard of any racism inour school. If I found out that our school was not as anti-racist as Ithought then I would show my results to the teacher in charge ofPHSE.”

Using the method of analysis outlined earlier this piece of writing showedevidence of two type (a) and three type (c) sentences.

Choosing my hypothesis (2nd attempt by pupil 1)“Our hypothesis is that our school has a non-racist environment. Thedifference between a hypothesis and a question is that a hypothesis isa positive statement and a question is asking something. We chose ourhypothesis because it would be interesting to see the results and theschool is always promoting equal opportunities so we could see if itwas having effect. We also thought it would be easy to collect the dataas our population under investigation was our school so we wouldhave easy access to all the pupils to make up our sample. I think thatour hypothesis is probably true because I haven’t really seen or heardof any racism in our school and our school does a lot to make sure thatracism does not go on in any way. I will find the evidence to supportmy hypothesis by asking a number of questions to pupils in the schooland recording the results in a statistical way. If I found out that ourschool was not as anti-racist as I thought then I would show my resultsto the teacher in charge of PHSE as we would need to do more work inPHSE to raise awareness.”



This second piece of writing showed evidence of three type (a) and four type(d) sentences.

Observation of pupils’ talkPupils’ talk was also observed in both the classroom (without a framework)and in the computer lab (with a framework) in order to find out more about therole of pupil talk in different contexts. Pupils’ talk was categorised into: (a) off-task talk; (b) rhetorical questions (c) managerial questions and (d) curriculumquestions. Detailed results of the observations can be found in (Deadman, 1995).For the purposes of this paper the relevant results concerning curriculum-relatedquestions have been extracted and are shown in Table 4. These results are forthe same 16 pupils whose writing was included in the analysis.

ResultsResultsResultsResultsResults

Analysis of WritingTable 1 shows the results from the 16 pupils who were included in the analysis.

Types of reasoningAn initial glance at these totals suggest there were two substantial shifts inreasoning. One towards type (b) and one towards type (d) reasoning. However,individual pupil totals show six of the 16 pupils moved towards type (b), sevenmoved towards type (c) and nine moved towards type (d).

Overall improvements in reasoningIn order to identify the overall improvements more clearly each reasoningcategory has been weighted to indicate increasing ability to reason as follows:type (a) = 0; type (b) = 1; type (c) = 2; type (d) = 3. The result of applying thisformula to pupils’ results in Table 1 is illustrated in Table 2 below which showsthat 11 of the 16 pupils made improvements in their reasoning.

Pupils who did not improveFive of the sixteen pupils did not improve when they used the hypermediastack. Of these, P7 was hampered by computer breakdowns and faulty disks;P5 was sharing a computer and had less access time than his partner; P8 and P9were sharing a computer and did not focus on their work; P16 let himself bedistracted by the computer itself and spent time exploring the system ratherthan writing.

Pupils who were excluded from the reasoning analysisOf the original 24 pupils, eight were excluded from the reasoning analysisbecause they did not have work in both the contexts to be compared.Nevertheless, their results merit some separate comment and are illustrated inTable 3 below.

2222222222 G. Deadman


Table 1.Table 1.Table 1.Table 1.Table 1. Contingency table: types of reasoning

without frameworkwithout frameworkwithout frameworkwithout frameworkwithout framework with frameworkwith frameworkwith frameworkwith frameworkwith framework

desdesdesdesdes subjsubjsubjsubjsubj objobjobjobjobj desdesdesdesdes subjsubjsubjsubjsubj objobjobjobjobj

PupilPupilPupilPupilPupil aaaaa bbbbb ccccc ddddd aaaaa bbbbb ccccc ddddd

P1 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 4P2 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 2P3 0 0 2 0 9 5 3 2P4 5 0 2 0 3 2 2 1

P5 10 1 6 0 3 1 3 1P6 6 0 7 0 4 1 8 1P7 8 1 7 1 7 0 4 0P8 3 0 4 1 3 0 4 1

P9 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 0P10 3 0 1 0 5 0 3 1P11 4 0 2 1 3 0 3 3P12 7 0 4 1 6 1 5 1

P13 2 0 0 0 7 0 4 0P14 3 0 1 0 1 2 1 0P15 5 0 2 1 3 1 4 1P16 1 0 5 1 3 0 4 0

Totals 60 2 49 6 66 13 50 18

Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2Table 2. Improvements in reasoning


P1 6 P1 12P2 2 P2 8P3 4 P3 17P4 4 P4 9

P5 13 P5 10P6 14 P6 20P7 18 P7 8P8 11 P8 11

P9 4 P9 2P10 2 P10 9P11 7 P11 15P12 11 P12 14

P13 0 P13 8P14 2 P14 4P15 7 P15 12P16 13 P16 8



Table 3.Table 3.Table 3.Table 3.Table 3. Contingency table for other pupils


desdesdesdesdes subjsubjsubjsubjsubj objobjobjobjobj desdesdesdesdes subjsubjsubjsubjsubj objobjobjobjobj

PupilPupilPupilPupilPupil aaaaa bbbbb ccccc ddddd aaaaa bbbbb ccccc ddddd

P17 couldn’t engage 5 0 3 1P18 couldn’t engage 4 0 0 0P19 lost work 4 2 1 0P20 lost work 7 1 5 0

P21 5 0 2 1 absentP22 0 0 1 0 absentP23 6 2 5 1 13 0 5 1P24 1 0 3 2 5 0 12 5

Four pupils, P17-20, were either not able to engage with the writing activity inthe classroom or said they had lost their work. The excuse ‘lost work’ is oftengiven by pupils when they have not done the work. It is interesting to notethat, with the framework, these pupils were confident enough to write up andhand their work to their teacher. Two pupils, P21 and P22 were absent and sotheir work was excluded. Two pupils, P23 and P24, created their ownhypermedia stack. P23 spent a long time exploring the potential of hypermediafor presentation and it is noticeable that he did not develop in his ability toreason. P24 was an extremely able pupil who dedicated a lot of time outsidelessons to create his own stack and further develop his writing as evidenced inthe results above.

Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4Table 4. Number of curriculum-related questionspupils asked the teacher


P1 0 P1 2P2 0 P2 0P3 1 P3 1P4 0 P4 1

P5 0 P5 1P6 1 P6 1P7 0 P7 1P8 1 P8 0

P9 0 P9 1P10 1 P10 2P11 0 P11 1P12 0 P12 0

P13 0 P13 2P14 0 P14 0P15 0 P15 2P16 1 P16 0

Totals 5 15

2424242424 G. Deadman


Observation of pupils’ talkTable 4 shows the pupils who asked the teacher curriculum-related questionsin the classroom (without the framework) and in the computer lab (with theframework).

An initial glance at the totals in Table 4 indicates that more curriculum-related questions were being posed by the pupils when they were using theframework. On an individual pupil basis nine of the 16 pupils asked morecurriculum-related questions with the framework than without it.

It is interesting to note that of these nine pupils, seven were also those whoshowed improvement in their ability to use type (c) and type (d) reasoning.

DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion

The results of the analysis of writing showed that, in the hypermedia reflectivewriting context, 69% of pupils made improvements in their reasoning ability.These results agree with previous research which found that encouraging pupilsto reflect on their thinking can lead to improved self-perceptions and subsequentimproved performance on tasks (Boud, et al., 1985; Powell, 1994). They alsoagree with studies which found some pupils were able to function at higherlevels of thinking as a result of access to IT (Johnson, op cit., Rostron, op cit.).

The prompt questions in the hypermedia stack could have led to the increasein pupils’ ability to reason. The ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘how’, nature of the questionssuggested a reason need to be given for something. This could perhaps beresponsible for the first shift, type (a) to type (b), made by over a third of thepupils. These results suggest that pupils were thinking again about their workand were realising that they needed to give reasons. Their inability to giveobjective reasons type (c) and type (d) suggest that they were either not yetready to think beyond their own understanding or not yet ready to engage thehelp of the teacher. Reasons such as “I did it because I like it”, suggests pupilswere not yet able to reflect ‘on their action’, rather they were still ‘in the action’(Schön, op cit.).

The second shift, made by approximately half the pupils, towards type (c)and (d), again suggests that pupils were thinking more deeply about their work.Their ability to give objective reasons suggests that they were able to thinkoutside their own understanding. Observation of pupils’ talk when they wereusing the hypermedia stack showed that most of these pupils were also moreable to ask curriculum-related questions of their teacher. If pupils asked theteacher direct questions which required a reason it is likely that the teacherwould have provided a reasoned answer. This shift in reasoning, then, couldbe directly related to pupils’ increased ability to ask the teacher curriculum-related questions. This lends support to the notion that there are strong linksbetween language and children’s success in the school environment (Stubbs, opcit.; Bernstein, op cit.). It also suggests that pupils were becoming more effectivelearners in that they knew what help they needed as well as how to get the help(Boud, op cit.; Powell, op cit.). This implies that pupils feel more confident to aska teacher for help if they know more precisely what questions to ask. A note ofcaution needs to be added here in that teachers’ ability to answer pupils’



questions effectively may have been positively enhanced by the extensivecollaborative planning which teachers engaged in for this research project.

Informal discussions with pupils indicated that they were more able toengage with their writing when they were using computers. The ability toconcentrate was cited by pupils as something which was enhanced with accessto computers. The impact of computers on pupils’ motivation is well known(Gardner, op cit.; Johnson, op cit.; Rostron, op cit.)

The results in this paper suggest that hypermedia reflective writingframeworks do support learning. Firstly, the prompt questions encouragedsome pupils to shift from descriptive writing to subjective reasoning. Secondly,the increased ability of pupils to ask the ‘right’ questions combined withimprovements in self-perception led to more pupils being able to get help fromtheir teacher and subsequently to reason more objectively. Lastly, access to ITmeant that pupils were more able to concentrate on their writing. The combinedeffects led to some improvements in the pupils’ ability to reason.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Bernstein, B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Routledge, London.Bliss, J., Monk, M. & Ogborn, J. (1983) Qualitative Data Analysis for Educational Research.

Croom Helm, London & Canberra.Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning.

Kogan Page, London.Deadman, G. (1995) The Role of Reflective Writing in Pupils’ Learning. Unpublished M.A.

dissertation, Institute of Education, London.Gardner, J., Morrison, H. & Jarman, R. (1993) The impact of high access to computers

on learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 99999, 1, 2-16.Johnson, D., Cox, M. & Watson, D. (1994) Evaluating the impact of IT on pupils’

achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10 10 10 10 10, 3, 138-156.Powell, S. & Makin, M. (1994) Enabling Pupils with Learning Difficulties to Reflect on

Their Own Thinking. British Educational Journal, 20 20 20 20 20, 5, 579-593Rostron, A., Plant, R. & Hermann, C. (1994) Hypermedia for the Learning Disabled:

Expensive Luxury or Useful Tool. Computers & Education, 2222222222, 3, 215-223.Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key Characteristics of Effective Schools õ

A review of school effectiveness research. OFSTED, London.Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York.Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1994) School Effectiveness and School Improvement: Voices from

the Field. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 55555, 2, 149-77.Stubbs, M. (1983) Language, Schools and Classrooms. Methuen, London.Vygotsky, L.S. (1986) Thought & Language. The MIT Press, Massachusetts.Walker, D. (1985) Writing and Reflection. In Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning.

(eds. D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker, D.) pp. 52-68. Kogan Page, London.

Documents

An analysis of pupils’ reflective writing within a hypermedia framework