Abstracts - Earli

Metacognitive reflection and revision: The impact of audience awareness and contentPetra Schulte-Löbbert, University of Münster, GermanyRainer Bromme, University of Münster, GermanyRegina Jucks, University of Münster, GermanyWe will present a computerized tool (CRT) that supports a writer’s metacognitive reflection abouther/his written text and thereby fosters the revision process. Working with the Concept RevisionTool (CRT) includes three main phases: (1) writing a first draft, (2) metacognitive reflection ofused concepts, and (3) revision of the text. Stage 2 is in the centre of attention. Here, the CRTanalyzes written texts by spotting out central terms (based on a database which is set up a prior bythe researcher) and reflects them to the writer by asking pointed questions about these concepts.By selecting the dimensions of reflection about concepts (for example reflection about theconcepts’ comprehensibility for a certain audience or about their importance for conveying acertain message), the CRT can be used to study those variables which might impact on textrevision. We will report results from a first experiment testing two of such dimensions. Researchon revision considers audience awareness and the content itself as important variables with animpact on revision. Hitherto, research is missing that compares these two dimensions directly. Inour study, n = 30 biological experts worked with the CRT and answered to a fictitious laypersonvia email. We manipulated the pointed questions in the reflection phase. For half of theparticipants, the CRT fosters audience awareness (audience focus condition); the other half wasfocused on the content (content focus condition). Results indicate that in the audience focuscondition, experts spent more time on revising, produced longer texts and did more meaningfulchanges than experts of the content focus condition. Results are discussed with respect to futureimplications of the CRT and its potential for studying the revision process.The pitfalls of overprompting in writing-to-learn with new mediaSandra Hübner, University of Freiburg, GermanyMatthias Nückles, University of Göttingen, GermanyAlexander Renkl, University of Freiburg, GermanyLearning protocols are a promising follow-up course work. A learning protocol is a writtenexplication of one’s learning processes and outcomes. Experimental studies show that prompts arean effective way to stimulate beneficial cognitive and metacognitive activities in writing learningprotocols. To investigate the long term effects of prompting learning protocols, we conducted alongitudinal study. Students wrote a learning protocol about each weekly seminar session over awhole term. They interacted with a web-server to administrate their learning protocols. The serverprovided the students with different instructions. The experimental group received a combinationof cognitive and metacognitive prompts that had proved to be most effective in our experimentalstudies. The control group received a rather non-specific instruction for writing their protocols (nopromptscondition). The data analyses revealed a significant interaction between measurementtime and experimental condition on different levels of analysis: The experimental groupoutperformed the control group regarding learning success when measured after the first half ofthe term. When learning success was measured again at the end of the term, the experimentalgroup performed no better than the control group. In the beginning of the term, the promptseffectively stimulated beneficial learning activities in the students’ learning protocols. Towards theend of the term, however, the students apparently felt more and more restricted by the promptinginstruction. Accordingly, their effort to elicit cognitive and metacognitive activities decreasedresulting in a substantially lower learning success. In summary, these results impressivelydemontrate the pitfalls of prompting procedures in writing-to-learn. It will be discussed how– 285 –