Ill
TY LIBRARY ‘

,.. I1IflimfiflijllWWII H mm . F 4‘,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106 1 6 1494
LIBRARY
Michigan State
University
L__ J
This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Word Processors and Qtudent writinn: A qtudv of
Their Impact on Revision, 17luencv, and quality
of Writing

presented by

Ruth 5. “ulinp

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

WM“. degreein Education

Teacher Education

 

WW fl, W

Major professor

Charles A. Blackman

Date ipril 0; T09“;

MS U i! an Aflirrmm'w Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

0-12771

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
“

we...‘___._.

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:

 

 

 

 

 

Place in book drop to »
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

A“
CL”
;' ., 5.0
“ J 'I‘.
1
131$

“fl _. .AMA l.”
.1
' 4.65%“

V
'fi‘ . .. .I'Q’A‘. ‘. 3|: '
49
I 4

.1 1

bet; cg \
',*.1.' a}

'131'3LI (j

T725 339‘?

 

i .

_ Ii .. sin-- IHEa .fim.

 

 

 

 

 

WORD PROCESSORS AND STUDENT WRITING:
A STUDY OF THEIR IMPACT ON REVISION,
FLUENCY, AND QUALITY OF WRITING

BY
Ruth A. Duling

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

1985

© Copyright by
RUTH A. DULING
1985

ABSTRACT
WORD PROCESSORS AND STUDENT WRITING:

A STUDY OF THEIR IMPACT ON REVISION,
FLUENCY, AND QUALITY OF WRITING

BY
Ruth Duling

The study draws on several fields of inquiry. One is
the role of revision throughout the recursive process of
composing text. Through the process the writer seeks to
match text to audience, to content and to stylistic
expectations. The second is the relationship between skill
in writing and the nature of the revision process used. The
third area is the field of computer-assisted composition.
Does the introduction of word processors in a secondary
English classroom affect student revision, correction of
errors, fluency, and quality of writing? Responses to this
question are investigated in the study.

Students in a ninth grade English class wrote seven
papers during the year. First drafts were all handwritten.
Second drafts were handwritten on the first two papers,
computer written on the next four papers, and handwritten
on the last paper. Revisions between first and second
drafts were rated. Uncorrected errors in spelling,
mechanics and usage were counted. Quality of writing was
rated holistically.

The Friedman test of repeated measure was used for the

data analysis. Students were found to have made

significantly more revisions at the sentence and
multi-sentence levels of their texts than expected. They
had fewer uncorrected punctuation and capitalization errors
using the word processors. There was no difference in the
judgment about the quality of writing of the student papers
whether hand- or computer-revised.

Papers became significantly shorter as the year
progressed, suggesting that the students' lack of typing
proficiency was an obstacle to their fluency. One
instructional implication of the findings was that access
to word processor technology will not result in improved
student editing of papers unless accompanied by lessons in
making certain corrections such as capitalization or
sentence structure corrections on the word processor.
Quality of student writing was not adversely affected by
the move to word processors, nor did it improve solely as a
result of word processor use. Recommendations for design
and instrumentation changes in successive studies are

presented.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researcher wishes to acknowlege the help of
several people during the preparation of the study.

First she wishes to acknowlege the encouragement from
her husband and children and their patience with the rigors
and time demands encountered during a doctoral program.

Two friends have been particularly supportive to the
researcher. Nancy Albyn was one of the first people to
encourage undertaking a doctoral program and has been a
source of moral support and wise advice since then. In
addition she generously gave of her time during the
tallying of data from the student papers in the study.
Carol Vanden Boorgart has been a kindred spirit during the
course of the program and later a living example that one
can, indeed, complete a doctorate.

The researcher thanks the members of the of the
doctoral committee Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Sheila
Fitzgerald, Dr. William Joyce, and Dr. James Page for the
time they have given to the development of the study, and
for their enthusiastic support of the study. Dr. Blackman

ii

in particular is thanked for his accessibility for reading
and conferring on drafts of the dissertation.

During the course of the study itself several other
people offered invaluable assistance and support. Sharan
Johnston, assistant manager of the local Radio Shack
outlet, provided her knowledge of the hardware being used,
her energetic assistance in working out the ”bugs" once the
network system was installed, and her enthusiasm for the
project and its worth. Jim Ashmore's generous cooperation
in the scheduling of classes to use the building computer
center made it possible to meet the writing schedule in the
study. Karen Tweddle's assistance with the holistic scoring
facilitated the collection of data from the papers. As the
data analysis stage of the study was reached, Dr. Bill
Veitch at Oakland Schools made resources available,
provided sound and patient advice, and acted as a sounding
board during the evolution of the ideas in chapter five.
Finally Kelley Cook's ingenuity and knowledge of the ins
and outs of computers made the production of copies of the

dissertation infinitely easier.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of tables................... ....... ................vii
List of figures........................................viii
1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM................................l
Background..............................................2
Purpose.................................................3
Hypotheses..............................................3
Significance of the Study...............................4
Research Design..... ...................................5
Definitions.............................................S
Limitations.............................................8
Sample................................................8
Class Curriculum......................................9
Writing Samples.......................................9
Dual Role of Researcher .............................11
Overview...............................................ll
2 PRECEDENT LITERATURE...................................12
Composition Theory and Research........................12
Composition Process Research.........................12
The Behavior and Perceptions of Writers..............l6
Revision Process Theory and Research...................l8
The Revising Behavior of Writers.....................20
Research on Instruction in Revision..................23
Research on Composition Using Word Processors..........25
Computers and the Physical Constraints of Writers....25
Computers and Psychological Constraints of Writers...27

Literature on Implementation of Computer
Composition..........................................3O
The Computer and the Writer; Research to Date........32
Methodological Precedents..............................34
Summary of Precedent Literature........................35
3 PROCEDURES.............................................4l
Hypotheses.............................................4l
Population.............................................42
Setting..............................................42
School Characteristics...............................42
Selection of Population; Class Characteristics.......43
Population Size......................................43
Class Curriculum.......................................44
Year's Sequence of Topics and Activities.............44
Collection of Writing Samples..........................48
Writing Sample Topics..................................50
Schedule of Writing Sample Topics......................50
Word Processing Equipment and Facilities Used in Study.52
Student Orientation to Word Processors.................52
Treatment of Student Papers............................53
Instrumentation........................................54
Analysis of Papers.....................................57
Analysis of Revisions................................S7

1v

Tabulation of Residual Errors and Word Counts........58

Holistic Scoring of Papers...........................S9
Data Analysis..........................................59
Summary................................................60
FINDINGS...............................................61
Null Hypotheses to be Tested...........................61
Statistics Used in Data Analysis.......................62
Data Related to Hypothesis One.........................63

Spearman Correlations for Revision Ratings...........63

Data
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data

Data
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data

Related
Related
Related
Related
Related
Related
Related

Related
Related
Related
Related
Related
Related
Related

to
to
to
tO
to
to
to

to
to
to
to
to
to
to

Data Related to Hypothesis Four...

Sub-hypothesis la....................65
Sub-hypothesis lb....................67
Sub-hypothesis lc....................69
Sub-hypothesis ld....................70
Sub-hypothesis le....................72
Sub-hypothesis lf....................74
Sub-hypothesis lg....................76

Data Related to Hypothesis Two.........................78
Data Related to HypotheSis ThreeOOOOOO...0.0.000000000080

Sub-hypothesis 3a....................80
Sub-hypothesis 3b....................83
Sub-hypothesis 3c....................84
Sub-hypothesis 3d....................87
Sub-hypothesis 3e....................89
Sub-hypothesis 3f....................9l
Sub-hypothesis 3g....................93

...................95

Data Related to Hypothesis Five........................97
Spearman Correlations for Holistic Scores............97
Differences in Summed Holistic Ratings...............98

Summary of Findings....................................99
Null Hypotheses Which Were Accepted.................100
Null Hypotheses Which Were Rejected.................lOO

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................102

Study Summary.........................................102

Discussion of Hypotheses and Findings.................103
Hypothesis One Findings.............................103

Surface Level Revision Findings...................104
Lexical Level Revision Findings...................104
Phrase Level Revision Findings....................lOS
Clause Level Revision Findings....................105
Sentence Level Revision Findings..................lOS
Multi-sentence Level Revision Findings............106
Text Analysis Revision Findings...................106
Hypothesis Two Findings.............................107
Hypothesis Three Findings...........................108
Spelling Error Rate Findings......................109
Capitalization Error Rate Findings................109
Sentence Structure Error Rate Findings............110
Punctuation Error Rate Findings...................1ll
Pronoun Usage Error Rate Findings.................lll
Paragraphing Error Rate Findings.......... ..... ...111
v

Miscellaneous Error Rate Findings.................112
Hypothesis Four Findings..............................ll3
Hypothesis Five Findings..............................114
Instructional Recommendations and Implications........116

Student Revising on Word Processors........ ........116
Student Editing of Text on Word Processors..........118
Student Keyboarding Skill...........................119
Technology and Quality of Writing...................120
Research Recommendations..............................121
Design Recommendations..............................121
Instrumentation Recommendations.....................125
Reflections on the Study..............................126
Student Receptivity.................................126
Student Orientation to Word Processors..............128
Scheduling and Class Planning.......................128
Teacher Familiarity with the Word Processor.........130
Conclusion..........................................131
Appendix A..............................................l32
Appendix B....... ..... ......... ..... ....................l41
Appendix C.... ...... ....................................l45
Bibliography. .......... .... ..... ........................l47

vi

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

ooqasmwar-d

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19

LIST OF TABLES

Rater Correlations on Revision Ratings.. ...... ..64

Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences

in
in
in
in
in
in
in

Surface Level Revisions..........65
Lexical Level Revisions..........67
Phrase Level Revisions...........69
Clause Level Revisions...........7l
Sentence Level Revisions.........73
Multi-sentence Revisions.........75
Text Analysis (Whole

Text) Revisions.................................77
Profile of Summed Reader 1 and 2 Ratings
by Levels for writings 1-7.0.000...00.0.0000000079

Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences
Differences

in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in

Spelling Error Rates.............81
Capitalization Error Rates.......83
Sentence Structure Error Rates...85
Punctuation Error Rates..........88
Pronoun Usage Error Rates........90
Paragraphing Error Rates.........92
Miscellaneous Error Rates........94
Total Word Counts................95

Spearman Correlations for Holistic .............97
Differences in Summed Holistic Ratings..........98

vii

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure
Figure

\0 mQQUIubWNH

h‘ Id h‘ P‘ 0d h‘
Ln .> u} a; rd 10

PH‘
xpm

LIST OF FIGURES
Surface Level Revisions....66
Lexical Level Revisions....68
Phrase Level Revisions.....70
Clause Level Revisions.....72
Sentence Level Revisions...74
Multi-sentence Revisions...75
Mean Summed Values, Whole Text Revisions.......77
Mean Total Reader 1 and 2 Ratings by Levels
Writings l-7...................................79
Mean Spelling Errors per Hundred Words,

Writings 1-7...................................82
Mean Capitalization Errors per Hundred Words,
Writings l-7...................................84
Mean Sentence Structure Errors per Hundred

Words, Writings l-7............................86
Mean punctuation Errors per Hundred Words
Writings l-7...................................88
Mean Pronoun Usage Errors per Hundred Words,
Writings l-7...................................90
Mean Paragraphing Errors per Hundred Words,
Writings l-7...................................92
Mean Miscellaneous Errors per Hundred Words,
Writings 1-7...................................94
Mean Word Counts Writings 1-7..................96
Mean Summed Holistic Scores Writings 1-7.......99

Values,
Values,
Values,
Values,
Values,
Summed Values,

Summed
Summed
Summed
Summed
Summed

Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean

viii

CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Research on the writing process - the actual composing
act - is a fairly new field of inquiry, spanning a decade
and a half of activity. Researchers of composition are
still fashioning a description of the composition process,
yet a clear move from the traditional linear, stage model
to a recursive, reflective model is evident. Within this
evolving picture of the writer at work, the revision
process and function is one area which some scholars
suggest has been shortchanged. Traditional instruction of
students in revision has typically focused on text editing,
on correction of errors rather than on re-viewing one's
emerging text. This instruction has not proven particularly
fruitful, either as evidenced by the practices of students
as they write or in terms of their perception of writing as
an activity (Schwartz, 1982).

A new techological development, the word processor,
may prove to be useful, both as the medium and the basis
for instruction in composition. Can the flexibility in text
manipulation afforded by word processors help students

develop as writers and revisers of their writing?

BACKGROUND

Revision is a general term for a variety of changes a
writer may make in his text. At one level a revision may be
an addition, 'a deletion, a substitution, or a change in
order of arrangement in the text ranging from modification
of letters in a word to changes in entire words to changes
in sentences. At a second level revision may also entail
changes in entire portions of the text as the writer
reviews the text in terms of his goals and sees how the
text is simultaneously serving the goals and shaping the
goals themselves (Murray, 1978; Sommers, 1980). These
definitions of what a writer may do as he revises have not,
however, had much impact on either students' understanding
of revision or on their revising behavior.

Research on student attitudes and composition
practices reveals the student writer's revision efforts as
superficial and concerned only with surface and word-level
corrections (Sommers, 1980; Cannon, 1981; Mayo, 1981). Well
might they be, since the mere physical act of writing text
may be so arduous a chore that the student does not look
for ways to change his text. Each change of any magnitude
means the work must be recopied. Since the student is his
own secretary, the most logical and economical way to avoid
this chore is to avoid revising beyond word-level
adjustments whenever possible. The first draft is often the

student's final draft, and the student does not experience

3
Sommers' concept of "re-vision", a reviewing and re-seeing
of the paper that is being created.

The technology of a computer with word-processing
software may alter this perception of the revising process.
Word processors permit text generation, modification and
production of a printed copy of the text with less physical
effort on the part of the writer. Changes can easily be
made in the text. Printed copies are quickly produced and
are always neat and tidy, in contrast to many handwritten
student papers. Many of the discouraging factors of
revising a paper are eliminated for the writer (Schwartz,

1982).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of
the use of word processors in the secondary English
classroom on student revising habits, correction of errors,

writing fluency, and the quality of student composition.

HYPOTHESES

A framework of several hypotheses provided the focus
of the study. The hypotheses were stated as follows:

1. Students will perform more revisions on in-class
papers written on the word processor than on in-class
papers written by the traditional paper-and-pencil method.

2. Students using word processors for in-class writing

4
will perform more revisions beyond the surface and word
levels than they do when composing with paper and pencil.

3. Student papers will display fewer residual errors
in mechanics or grammar when written on the word processor
than when written by the traditional method.

4. Students will produce longer in-class papers on the
word processor than they produce by traditional methods.

5. Students will not display the same quality of
writing in papers written on the word processor that they
display in traditionally produced in-class papers. Quality

of writing will be assessed holistically.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Research on computer composition is a new area of
inquiry. While some work has been begun, most of it has
looked at either college students or graduates as they use
word processors. On the other hand, younger writers, that
is, students in the public schools, have not been studied
as they use word processors for their writing. Studies of
younger students have typically examined the effects and
efficacy of computer-assisted instruction, not word
processor use. Public school educators recently have been
under considerable pressure to use computers in their
classrooms. Yet without research on the. effectiveness of
more forms of instructional computing than computer

assisted instruction in a limited number of subject areas,

5
educators will not be in a position to make wise decisions
about whether, where, and how to use computers in their

instructional programs.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A time-series or repeated measure design is suggested
for this study. Two writings will be collected early in the
year before the students start to use the word processors.
Four writings will be done using the word processors
(December, late January, late March, and early May), and a
final writing not using the word processor will be done by
late May.

Several types of data will be extracted from the
papers written during the year. Word counts and several
categories of residual error counts will be completed. The
papers will be holistically scored to determine quality of
writing. Holistic scoring has established itself as a valid
and direct means of assessing student writing ability
fairly quickly and efficiently (Cooper and Odell, 1977;
Spandel, 1981). In addition several categories of revisions
made between drafts one and two of each paper will be
tallied. Changes in these several factors of the papers

will be analyzed and tested for significance.

DEFINITIONS

Certain key terms relevant to this study have Specific

definitions.

Word Processor. A computerized typewriter that allows

 

the writer to correct all his errors (spelling, grammar,
punctuation) and to re-arrange and re-format his text on a
video screen before printing the final version of the
document (Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium,
1982).

Revision. Changing a text by additions, deletions, or
substitutions made at the word, phrase, clause, sentence or
multi-sentence levels. Complete redirection or content
change of the text is also included within the realm of
revision activity.

Surface leggl. Text changes including changes in
spelling, punctuation, capitalization, singular or plural
number of words, morphological conditioning, verb form, use
of abbreviations of words, use of symbols versus full forms
of the word, use of abbreviations versus full forms of
words, use of contractions versus full forms of the phrase
(Bridwell, 1980).

Lexical lgggl. Text changes involving addition or
deletion or substitution of a single word or the
substitution of one word for another (Bridwell, 1980).

Phrase level. Text changes involving the addition or

 

deletion of a phrase (that is, a group of words within a
sentence) or the substitution of one phrase for another.

These changes include expansion of a word to a phrase or

7
reduction of a phrase to a word (Bridwell, 1980).

Clause lgygl. Text changes involving the addition or
deletion of a clause (a group of words within a sentence;
this group has a subject and verb) in a text or the
substitution of one clause for another within the text.
Expansion of a word or phrase to a clause and reduction of
a clause to a word or phrase are included (Bridwell, 1980).

§gntence level. Text changes involving the addition,
deletion or word order rearrangement of an entire sentence
or the substitution of one sentence for another sentence as
punctuated by the writer. Expansion of a word, phrase or
clause to a sentence; reduction of a sentence to a word,
phrase, or clause; and transformation (such as a change
from active to passive voice verbs) of a sentence are
included (Bridwell, 1980).

Multi-sentence leygl. Text changes involving the
addition, deletion, substitution or order shift of two or
more consecutive sentences. Reduction of two or more
sentences to a single sentence is included. Indention or
de-indention is also considered a multi-sentence change
(Bridwell, 1980).

1333 analysis (whole text) lgggl. These changes
include changes in the subject matter of the text, the
function or viewpoint. of the text, or the intended audience
of the text. They may also be modification of the text so

that there is little one-to-one correSpondence of two texts

8
although the subject, purpose and audience of the text
remain the same (Bridwell, 1980).

HQlifiLic Scoring. A "guided procedure for sorting or
ranking written pieces. . . . (It) occurs quickly,
impressionistically . . . (and) is usually guided by a
holistic scoring guide which describes . . . quality levels
for each feature" (COOper and Odell, 1977, p.3).

Residual error. An error in spelling, mechanics, or
grammar which has not been corrected by the writer and

which remains in the final draft of the paper.

LIMITATIONS

The design of this study results in several
limitations. These limitations relate to the sample
population, the total class curriculum, the collection of
the writing samples, and the dual role played by the
researcher in the study.

Sample

The use of a typically scheduled class from a
rural/suburban public school rather than a true random
sample imposes certain limitations in terms of the study
population. The students to be observed in this study will
be members of one ninth grade English class from a junior
high school in a rural/suburban community. The class has
been designated as a "regular" English class. This

designation indicates that students from several ability

9

levels are present. Building scheduling practice calls for
the slotting of students who are particularly skilled
verbally in honors classes and students experiencing severe
problems in reading and writing in special reading classes.
Due to these scheduling procedures, the group studied will
not be a true random sample of the population of this
school. The class chosen for the study will be a group
meeting during the first half of the day to minimize the
effects of fatigue, lunch-hour socializing, and the
scheduling of assemblies, such as pep assemblies, on the
students.

Class size in this school usually runs twenty-eight to
thirty-two students in "regular" English classes. However,
some members will not be included as study subjects if they
do not complete all seven writings at the scheduled times
due to factors such as late schedule changes, moving into
or out of the school district, or failure to complete the
assignments despite the efforts of the
instructor/researcher.

Class Curriculum

The curriculum for "regular" English classes in this
school includes composition, literature, grammar, library
and research skills, and speech work. In the ninth grade
particular emphasis is placed on composition. The word
processors will be used by the students throughout the year

for the papers consituting the writing samples for the

10
study as well as for other assignments.

Thus, the course includes a number of elements outside
the realm of instruction in composition. While individual
instructors have considerable freedom in the allocation of
time to the various topics to be covered, class time is to
be spent in all the areas of study. Therefore, the course
is not to be construed as a true composition course,
although written work from students in various modes of
discourse will form the backbone of their class experience.

Writing Samples

The drafts of the papers will be written and
transcribed during class time, and, consequently, are
products of the students' efforts. Limitations of the
memory size of the microcomputers available prevent the use
of software which would build keystroke records of each
student as he works. Therefore, the analysis of revisions
made by the students will come from a comparison of the
first, hand-written text and the print-out of the second
draft prepared on the computer. Trial revisions made and
rejected by students in the course of preparing the second
draft will not have been recorded.

Students will receive minimal direct guidance from the
instructor/researcher. The instructor/researcher will act
as facilitator and consultant to the students, not as
personal editor to them. She will not proofread the texts

on the screen to point out problems, however, she will be

11
available to answer questions or make suggestions or to
discuss recurrent problems during writing conferences
between writings for the study. Dictionaries and
thesauruses will be available in the room and peer
assistance will not be discouraged.
Dual Role of Researcher

The researcher in the study will, in fact, play a dual
role. During the course of the school year she will be
acting in the role of teacher for the class whose work is
being studied. Since hers is the only English classroom
equipped with computers and a printer and no other English
teachers in the building are using work processors, only
the classes being taught by the researcher during the year
could be considered for the study.
OVERVIEW

Chapter one presented the problem to be investigated
in the study and background information on the problem. In
addition several key terms to the study were defined. A
review of the literature on composition theory, revision
theory and behavior, and computer composition follows in
chapter two. Procedures of the study will be discussed in
chapter three. The results of the statistical analysis of
the data are found in chapter four, while chapter five
couples an interpretation of the findings with

instructional implications and recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO PRECEDENT LITERATURE

The study draws on the literature of three related
content areas. These three areas are composition theory and
research, revision process theory and research, and

research on composition using word processors.

COMPOSITION PROCESS THEORY AND RESEARCH

Research which has yielded new insights on the
composing process of writers is a fairly new field of
inquiry, spanning less than the last two decades. Within
that period the model of the composing process has changed.
Also insights into the contrasting activities of skillful
versus less skillful writers have been acquired.

Composition Process Research

Research on the composing process has increased
greatly during the last quarter century. Braddock's 1963
review of research on composition revealed a scarcity of
work on the composition process or writers at work. Only
two studies of adolescent writing are included, both
focusing on the products produced rather than the process
used by the students.

Emig (1971) broke new ground with her case study of

12

13

eight high school seniors at work and the development of a
model of the composing process which included the decisions
made by the student during the creation of text. These
decisions include content, lexical, and rhetorical
considerations. While Emig's study has not been without
criticism of its generalizability, the form of the
researcher's interactions with the students, and Emig's
composing aloud protocol, the study still stands as a
watershed in composition research (Voss, 1983). Emig's work
provided the impetus for successive studies of writers at
work, for closer examination of the composing process
itself, and for a move from the traditional static
description of composing to a fluid, recursive
conceptualization of the process.

During the mid-1970's, Mischel (1974) completed a case
study of a less-capable writer at work, in contrast with
Emig who had selected average and above-average writers for
her study. This line of investigation was also pursued by
Shaughnessey's (1977) study of writing perceptions,
problems and behaviors based on a study of errors in the
writing done by basic writers at the City College of the
City University of New York. Shaughnessey highlighted areas
in which the student's lack of familiarity with written
language leaves students in remedial writing classes unable
to make sense of and to skillfully apply grammatical

concepts and conventions of usage taught in school while

A- ’r

14
simultaneously attempting to put their ideas on paper.
Writing for these students, she contended, is a matter of
guessing what the teacher wants them to write rather than
discovering what they have to say about a topic.

Composition theory and research in the last decade
have given new. insights into differences between oral and
written composing and the vprocesses of problem solving
involved in written composition. Bereiter (1980) noted that
written' English is a subsystem of English which employs
special conventions (spelling, punctuation, paragraph
indentation, different distribution of linguistic devices)
which are not found in spoken English. Hayes and Flower's
use of protocol analysis has led them to reject the linear
stage model of composition in favor of a fluid,
hierarchically organized composing model with component
processes embedded within other components (1980, 1981).
The linear .model depicted the writer as moving in
succession from topic selection and pre-planning to
composing on paper to revising in producing a finished
draft. The Flower and Hayes model depicts the writer as
rapidly shuttling between goal setting, planning and
organizing, translating ideas into written text, evaluating
and revising the emerging text in terms of the established
goals. Flower and Hayes also identified numerous
constraints and considerations which face 1th? writer during

composition: knowledge of the topic; putting knowledge into

,,_,_‘__ ‘ . .-.,_v

15

acceptable written form; rhetorical problems such as
defining the purpose in writing, anticipating the needs of
the audience. To reduce these constraints, the researchers
contend, the writer employs various strategies to solve
these problems and to give shape to the writing.
Composition instruction, therefore, should help students
enlarge their repertoire of strategies and heuristics
(Flower and Hayes, 1980, pp. 34 - 50). Thus the composition
process is really a thinking problem rather than an
arrangement problem as presented in traditional handbooks
of rhetoric and composition. Moreover, rather than the
static, linear stage process or pre-writing, writing,
revising that was traditionally presented in these texts,
the new model of the composing process shows the writer
shuttling between the activities of planning, translating
ideas into written form, and reviewing/evaluating/revising
as he or she transforms ideas into text and is influenced
in the further creation of text by what has already been
written (Flower and Hayes, 1977).

Not only has the composing process been described as a
complex pattern of planning, formulating ideas in words,
reviewing, and reformulating, it has been described as a
process of discovery. Murray (1980) sees the writer
alternating between writing and reading what he or she has
written during the first exploration of ideas, then, in

successive drafts, clarification of ideas. Thus, to Murray,

16
the writer does not really know what he or she has to say
until it has been said.
The Behavior and Perceptions of Writers

Other researchers turned their efforts to studying the
actual behaviors of writers at work. Stallard (1974)
studied two groups of student writers, one group identified
as proficient writers, the other a comparison group of
writers of different ability levels. These observations and
interviews with the students after they had written led
Stallard to conclude that the better writers differed from
their peers in several ways: they Spent significantly more
time in pre-writing and usually had a clear purpose in mind
as they began to write; they were more concerned with
communicating their- ideas; they stopped more often to
review their writing before proceeding; they made more
changes in their text, significantly more at the single
word, paragraph, and multiple word levels. Similar
observations were made by Birnbaum (1981) in a study of
reading and composing behavior of fourth- and seventh-grade
students. More proficient students had a greater awareness
of their purpose in writing beyond satisfying the
requirements of the assignment and were more inclined to
revise their papers for stylistic reasons, not simply to
meet the conventions of written language.

In her work Mayo looked beyond student writing

behavior to students' perceptions of the writing task.

17

Interviews of average tenth-grade students revealed a
general lack of planning before writing. The writing task
was usually approached holistically with less attention to
internal aspects of the assignment or to meeting the needs
of their writing audience, effectively simplifying and
short circuiting the process they engaged in as writers
(Mayo, 1981).

Other researchers have investigated psychological
factors influencing writing behavior. Daly advanced the
notion of writing apprehension, the experience of stress in
situations requiring writing, as an influence in a person's
writing performance. He found that writers with low writing
apprehension performed better than highly apprehensive
writers on a test of grammar, mechanics and writing skills
(Daly, 1978). A later study revealed that highly anxious
writers wrote papers that were shorter, less syntactically
mature or fluent, displayed a more restricted repertoire of
syntactic constructions, and contained less information in
each communication unit (Faigley, Daly and Witte, 1981).
Bannister (1982) and Bloom (1980) both conducted case
studies in which writing anxiety was found to be related to
particular kinds of behaviors in the student writers. Low
apprehension writers Spent more time considering various
topics and reconsidering and working through their ideas
before writing. High apprehension writers, on the other

hand, spent their pre-writing time avoiding the writing

18
job, anticipating failure at the task, and finally writing
about the first idea that came to mind. They revised
little, fearing that side- or back-tracking might cause
them to lose their ideas before completing their task.

Writing was a task to complete, not a discovery to be made.

REVISION PROCESS THEORY AND RESEARCH

As the model of the composition process has changed
from a linear stage model to a complex, recursive,
reflective/generative model, so has the model of the
revision process changed.

Revision has been defined by one contemporary scholar
as ”a sequence of changes in a composition, changes which
are initiated by cues and occur continually throughout the
writing of a work" (Sommers, 1980, p. 380).

Revision had long been relegated to the end of the
writing process as a final clean-up and polishing stage.
Hodges (1982) traces the concept of revision from ancient
times to the present. To Aristotle revision meant the
writer found and structured his content to fit rhetorical
forms and then polished his product primarily at the
sentence level (p.26). The Roman, Quintilian, also
expressed concern with editing to polish, but noted the
role of inSpiration in the work of the writer as "some
glowing thought, suggested on the instant, should Spring

up" and he incorporated these insights into his work

19

(p.26). During the successive centuries of the Middle Ages
through the seventeenth century, rhetoricians continued to
emphasize the imitation of classical works, the expression
of clear thinking according to rules, and the polishing of
one's diction and syntax. With the work of Ben Jonson, and
later of George Campbell, the concepts of the writer as
first an inventor, then a selector and modifier of what had
been created were forwarded, resurrecting Quintilian's
mention of inspiration in the work of the writer
(pp.29-31). Hodges contends that in the last three
centuries our theory and pedagogy of revision have advanced
little from the neoclassical concentration on correctness
in composition despite growing evidence from the successive
drafts of good writers from Sir Philip Sidney onward, that
revision is not merely polishing for propriety (p.33). The
message from the examination of the work of good writers is
that revision entails ”searching, gaining perspective,
turning fragments into artistic wholes” (p. 39).

Not only does the concept of revision as polishing not
reflect the actual evolution process engaged in by
established writers, some researchers say this depiction of
revision is inadequate since it fails to answer critical
questions about how mature writers made decisions about how
to shape their texts (Sommers, 1979). Moreover, this View
of revision as tidying up one's text fails to help teachers

instruct their students how to perform a crucial part of

20
the writing process (Lordon, 1983, p. 171). Research
pertaining to how writers act. as they revise and the
effectiveness of various instructional methods in revision
will now be considered.
The Revising Behavior of Writers

During the last decade a number of researchers have
focused on the behavior of writers at work, bringing to
light new information on critical differences between
effective and less effective writers and how they revise
their work. Stallard's 'comparison of a group of proficient
student writers and a random group of student writers
revealed the better writers made significantly more single
and multiple word changes as well as paragraph changes in
their texts. The randomly chosen writers primarily made
changes in Spelling. The better writers also Spent more
time in pre-writing activities, stopping to reflect on
their work while writing and spent more time on the entire
task (1974). From these findings it appears there are two
types of revisions, revising to fit conventions such as
spelling, mechanics, and useage; and revising to fit
intentions, revising text to match the writer's purpose,
meaning, and anticipated audience needs. While better
writers do indeed attend to the conventions of written
language, they also are concerned with shaping the text to
reflect their purpose and meaning, and to concurrently let

the evolving text modify their intentions (Nold, 1982,

21
pp. 18 - 19).

These findings are substantiated by the work of
Schwartz (1983), Pianko (1979), and Sommers (1980) and
Beach (1976). Less experienced writers revealed discomfort
with the terms "rewrite” and "revise" which they defined in
terms of "cleaning up" their text and making it conform to
certain rules of composition before recopying the text.
Revision to these writers is punishment, the ”price you
have to pay if you don't get it right the first time"
(Murray, 1978, p. 56). Sommers noted this widespread
concern with choosing the "right" word and called it the
"thesaurus philosophy of writing". Beach noted that these
writers were concerned with making a good impression on
readers and recited teacher labels and evaluations of their
work, such as ”choppy" or "trite" as they reviewed their
papers (Beach, 1976, pp. 160-164). More skilled writers, on
the other hand, write a draft to discover their ideas and
then rewrite to define and Shape their ideas (Sommers,
1980). Revision, then, "occurs when writers are trying to
find out what they have to say", a process which precedes
final editing and polishing of the text so it can be
understood by another audience (Murray, 1978, p. 57). Beach
found that more extensive revisers could establish an
”aesthetic distance" from their work in order to evaluate
what they had written. In addition they focused on major

ideas and patterns of development and then assessed their

22
success in developing these ideas and patterns in their
writing (1976, pp. 160 - 164).

Kroll investigated the question of audience awareness
in nine-Year olds. Building on the earlier work of Piaget
and Flavell on egocentrism and decentering in children,
Flavell found that children do not decenter in their oral
and written messages at the same developmental rate (Kroll,
1978).

Bridwell developed an instrument to categorize and
tabulate the changes made in a text during the evolution of
the manuscript. The instrument captured changes such as
additions, deletions, order changes, expansions to a larger
syntactic structure, and reduction to a smaller syntactic
structure in various levels of text manipulation ranging
from spelling changes, lexical changes, through phrase and
clause changes to redirection and reconceptualization of
the entire text. Following validation of the instrument,
Bridwell used it to classify and tabulate the kinds of
revisions made by one hundred randomly chosen twelfth
graders in drafting and revising a paper. Surface and word
level changes constituted over half the revisions tallied.
The least revised papers were shorter and usually below the
mean quality rating, indicating the students lacked the
skills or ideas to say more or to alter their ideas and
language. The most extensively revised papers ranged in

quality ratings. While some good writers revised

23
extensively, others made few changes. Poor writers, in
contrast, in effect recopied their papers, revising
primarily at surface and word levels. Alterations in the
over-all content or mode of discourse of the paper were not
found (Bridwell, 1980, p. 197 - 222).
Research on Instruction in Revision

Given what has been learned about the revising
strategies of skilled writers, how can instructors help
their students learn to revise more effectively and to
apply this skill habitually to their work? While research
has revealed significant differences in the revision
strategies and behaviors of writers, less success has been
attained in uncovering instructional activities to
encourage and increase students' revision of the papers.

One study involved instructing college freshmen in
editing Skills and requiring them to rewrite their papers
in class. Control sections of the freshman class did not
receive this instruction, nor did they rewrite papers. The
researcher found that there were no significant differences
between the groups in regard to their proofreading, editing
and composition skills and that both groups gained in these
skills during the term. She concluded that requiring
students to rewrite papers was a waste of time as a way to
improve student composition skills (Hanson, 1978, pp. 956 -
960).

Pavlisin reported on a similar experiment in which

24

community college technical students were instructed in
revision and proofreading and were required to revise their
papers. She found no significant difference in writing
achievement between the groups, although She noted a
decrease in the most frequent errors (run-ons, punctuation
and capitalization errors) in the papers of the
experimental group. A post-experimental questionnaire
revealed no statistically significant difference in the
revising and proofreading habits of either group of
students following completion (Pavlisin, 1982).

Chaudron found no difference in the effects of
peer-feedback versus teacher feedback on student papers,
although he felt peer feedback helped develop student
sensitivity to his audience (1983).

Instruction in the use of a self-assessment instrument
to guide revision of papers was found effective in another
study involving college freshmen. Students who received the
instruction tended to revise in areas indentified in the
self-assessment, especially in the areas of support,
organization and syntax. The researcher reported
differences in the students' ability to apply the
self-assessment guidelines to their writing, to pinpoint
weaknesses and rework sections of their papers (Beach,

1984).

25

RESEARCH ON COMPOSITION USING WORD PROCESSORS

The. notion of what is involved in composing and
revising text, then, has changed dramatically,
substantiated by the work of numerous researchers over the
last fifteen years. Composing is no longer conceptualized
as a linear, sequential act as it once was. The process,
instead, is now conceptualized as a fluid, recursive
journey of discovery and refinement. Central to this
process of the evolution of text is the act of revision, of
re-viewing and re-seeing one's text in terms of one's
intentions. In contrast to this fluid process is the static
instructional design still presented in many composition
handbooks and texts. Even the addition of instruction in
revising and editing to composition classes has yielded
disappointing results.

Computers and the Physical Constraints of Writers

In contrast to past attempts to instruct students in
revision is the call from some researchers and educators to
experiment with a new composing medium, one more fluid and
flexible than the conventional methods of typing or using
paper and pencil. For the student writer, a great deal of
composing/rewriting time and energy must be spent on the
physical act of writing, a particularly slow and laborious
act for younger students or students with less-developed
fine motor skills. ”For most children rewriting a text is

so laborious that the first draft is the final copy and the

26

skill of rereading with a critical eye is never acquired"
(Papert, 1980, p. 30). The effort of trying for
mistake-free drafts blocks the writers and limits the depth
and scope of self-expression in their writing. Thus the
traditional paper-and-pencil technology flies in the face
of recent findings about the nature of the composing
process and the role of revising within this process. While
students may rewrite papers to meet class requirements,
they tend to write less so there is less to copy over, and
revisions tend to be limited to surface changes such as
Spelling or word-level changes so that revisions can be
simply and neatly incorporated (Schwartz, 1982).

The medium being suggested is a computer with word
processing software which allows the student to enter, add,
delete or otherwise manipulate text, print, and store what
has been written. Use of word processors for student
writing can reduce the frustrations of recopying text, thus
removing the onus of writing multiple drafts of a text or
producing multiple capies of the text for peer evaluation._
Additionally, students become less defensive about changing
their texts when working on a medium which permits easy
incorporation of changes in the text and nearly effortless
production of new copies of the text (Schwartz, 1982).

These are not the first writers to cite the difficulty
caused for student writers by having to write and copy text

by hand. Shaughnessey's observations of students in her

27

basic writing classes led her to conclude that even
college-age students may be handicapped by their
handwriting. Students who experience difficulty in writing
tend to write less often and to write fewer words when they
do write. Consequently, over the years they have less
practice in the act of handwriting and so may still be
struggling with the mechanics of writing which their more
fluent peers had long ago mastered. Shaughnessey reported
an eighty percent success rate in a summer typing project
for basic writing students. Most of the students who
completed the typing course continued using this skill for
work in their classes (Shaughnessey, 1977, ch. 2 ).

Computers and Psychological Constraints of Writers

Besides these physical barriers encountered by the
writer, certain psychological barriers may impede his or
her efforts. Cognitive development research has established
that writing abilities usually lag behind the development
of speaking abilities. It is speculated this is due to the
fact that when talking, the conversational context and
interaction provide clues to the speaker when he or she
needs to clarify or expand on a point being made to his or
her listener(s). When composing, however, the writer must
conduct an interal dialog between the writer as composer
and the writer as editor. Writers must autonomously supply
their own contextual and interaction clues, clues that are

natural in conversational situations, if their meaning is

28
to be both clear to the reader and written in standard
English. Researchers have found that autonomous interaction
develops later than the skills for Spoken conversation
(Daiute, 1983, pp. 137-138).

Revision also“ calls for an objective attitude toward
one's writing. Researchers have found two revision patterns
among children, random drafters and refiners. Some children
produce successive drafts of a paper without referring to
the preceding draft(s). Others, the refiners, correct
specifics of the original text such as spelling. Few
children become interactive revisers, reading the paper
critically, reacting to it, and making sentence-by-sentence
changes.

As Daiute notes, revision, true re-viewing of one's
text in light of one's goals for the particular writing, is
difficult. Revision requires the writer to evaluate both
his or her own thinking and his or her verbal expression.
It requires examination of one's strategies for making
coherent, logical arguments - thinking about one's thinking
- and requires knowledge and ability to apply the rules of
standard English to one's own text. Detecting errors in the
mechanics of one's writing can be especially difficult.
Writing errors, it is believed, are caused by automatic
memory processes, so identification of errors may not be
easy (Daiute, 1983, pp. 137 - 138).

The production of complex sentences involves the use

29

of both short term memory and long term memory. Sentence
production first involves the short term memory. Research
indicates that Short term memory has a five- to eight-item
limit, so as the limit is approached, the formed portion of
the sentence is transferred to one's long term memory. Long
term memory, however, does not retain the literal wording
of the sentence, but only the meaning. Consequently, as the
writer is shaping a complex sentence, errors in syntax may
arise from this transfer from Short term to long term
memory. This process also makes error detection difficult.
The limitations of Short term memory mean trouble when
writers try to carry on syntactic and semantic correctness
simultaneously, that is, when they try to compose and
correct at the same time (Daiute, 1983, pp. 139 - 149).

Daiute contends that word processor composition can
help writers in several ways. The ability to manipulate,
store, and print copies of text easily with a word
processor can remove the writer's self-imposed burden of
revising while composing, of trying to do it all in a
single draft. When revising and reprinting impose no
hardship on the writer, he or She becomes free to take
risks, to invent with the text. The composing medium
becomes a tool rather than an obstacle. Skilled typists
report being able to keep up with the flow of ideas and to
record them on word processors. Daiute contends this

permits better development of ideas and a more natural

30

style of writing. In addition, faster word production frees
the memory for composing activities such as developing
content rather than for holding onto ideas until they can
be recorded. Terminals in network systems allow writers to
share texts and to comment on each other's work more freely
and easily than is usually possible. Finally, software such
as Spelling checkers can alert the writer to errors that
might not have been detected. For some writers this can
initiate revisions not otherwise made. For all writers such
features can turn the drudge work over to the computer
while freeing the writer to write (Daiute, 1983, pp. 140 -
143).

Literature on Implementation of Computer Composition

During the last three years professional publications
have begun to carry articles discussing these probable
advantages of word processors in the composition classroom
and alerting teachers to possible problems in hardware and
software acquisition or program implementation (Cronnel and
Humes, 1981; Kleinian and Humphrey, 1982; Moran, 1983;
WOmble, 1983; Fisher, 1983; Self, 1983; Marcus, 1983;
Marling, 1983; Curtice, 1984; Schrader, 1984). Among the
articles which include classroom anecdotes concerning
students and word processors is Littlefield's account of
using word processors with educationally handicapped upper
elementary students. Increased student motivation and

concern about modifying and correcting their writing were

31

reported although no statistical analysis was included
(Littlefield, 1983). Bradley described the use of word
processors with first graders in a teacher-led language
experience writing activity and with a group of sixth
graders. Again the report was primarily anecdotal material,
although the results of a survey showing participating
sixth graders' positive reaction to using the word
processor were included (Bradley, 1982).

During this same period a number of colleges and
universities have developed computer programs to assist
students with their pre-writing work and editing work.
Programs such as Essay Writer used at the University of
Wisconsin - Marinette (Wresch, 1982b); a program based on
Artistotle's enthymene tapoi, Burke's pentad, and
Young-Becker-Pike's tagmenic matrix at the Air Force
Academy in Colorado (Burns, 1979, 1980); Schwartz's
pre-writing and peer feedback program at Oakland University
(Schwartz, 1982, 1984); the Wordsworth II program at
Michigan Technical University (Selfe and Wahlstron, 1983);
pre-writing invention programs at University of New Mexico
(Rodrigues and Rodrigues, 1984) pose questions or prompts
to the student to stimulate his or her flow of ideas and
begin to structure those ideas before writing. Other
schools have designed or adopted text-analysis software
such as Writer's Workbench from Bell Laboratories. The

programs in Writer's Workbench provide detailed information

32
about the sentence structure, stylistic features, errors in
spelling or mechanics .in a text entered by a student
(MacDonald et al , 1982; Wresch, 1982; Kreiter-Kurylo,
1983).
The Computer and the Writer; Research to Date

Although word processors offer apparent advantages to
both the student writer and the writing instructor, the new
techology has not been extensively incorporated into
writing programs so far. Along with this gap between the
development and the adoption of word processors as an
instructional tool for composition classes, there is a
dearth of research on the impact of word processor use on
writers and their work. Lawler (1980) reported on a case
study of a six-year old child who dictated his stories to
an adult who typed the stories on a word processor for the
child. More systematic studies of word processor use first
were conducted by Allen at Bell Laboratories (1981) and
Gould at the IBM Research Center (1981, 1982). Allen made
measurements of the time alloted to the tasks of text entry
(75% of total time) and of rereading and correcting (25% of
total time) by sixteen adults who were experienced word
processor users. Gould looked at time use, quality, and
style of a series of letters produced by IBM researchers
who were experienced word processor users. He compared
these qualities in letters done with the word processor and

letters which had been manually written and edited before

33

being given to secretaries for retyping. While he concluded
that his subjects composed manually faster than they
composed, edited and printed using the word processor,
Gould did not include the secretary's typing time for each
letter in his calculations. He found no difference in the
style and quality of the letters regardless of composition
mode (Gould, 1981).

Collier and others have begun to study word processor
use by college undergraduates and graduate students.
Collier conducted a study in which four freshman
composition students with no prior computer or word
processing experience first drafted papers manually and
then typed their text on word processors for revising and
printing. In examining the four papers produced during this
study, Collier found no apparent change in the quality of
the papers produced, although there was an increase in the
number and complexity of the revisions made in
word-processed papers. Superior students excelled in using
the word processor, while weaker students seemed
overwhelmed by it, perhaps, Collier suggested, due to the
sophistication of the equipment available (Collier, 1981,
1983). Bean, in a study drawing on student testimony
following word processor use for six papers, found the
computer use itself draws students back to revise more.
Ease of copy production encouraged revision since the

printouts were always neat and required little effort on

34

the part of the student (Bean, 1983).

Several studies have been conducted at the University
‘of Minnesota. Bridwell introduced eight experienced
(doctoral candidates who had been published) writers to the
word processor to see how the writers would accommodate the
new composing medium. She found that several subjects could
no longer use their customary techniques such as drawing
diagrams while drafting on the word processor. Nearly all
her subjects revised more because revision was so easy,
although some revised so much it impeded their forward
movement in writing text (Bridwell, Nancarrow, and Ross,
1984). A drop in fluency was noted when the writer moved to
using the word processor (Johnson, 1982). A case study of
five upperclassmen in a business writing course revealed
the students made more surface level changes and more
formatting changes with the word processor, possibly due to
the nature of the business communication tasks being
completed. While some writers worked quickly and revised
little, one made many changes and took a good deal of time
completing the writing tasks (Bridwell, Sirc, Brooke,
1983).
METHODOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS

Two precedent studies were drawn upon for the design
of the study. Collier's descriptive study looked at four

adults using the word processor for revising a series of

35

papers for their freshman composition class. The students
were instructed in the use of the word processor. They then
wrote their first drafts by hand, typed the text, and
revised on the word processors. Using a less elaborate
tabulation system than Bridwell's, he recorded revisions
made by his four subjects while using the word processor.
He then considered the quality of the writing that had been
produced (Collier, 1981, 1983). Bridwell's study of student
revising behavior provided the instrument for recording
student revisions and provided precedent for using a
holistic scale to determine quality of writing in a paper
(1980).

SUMMARY OF PRECEDENT LITERATURE.

Emig's 1971 study marked the birth of the current era
of composition research. Her investigation of writers in
the act of composing set the direction of investigation in
the following years. Using .a more refined version of
composing aloud, Flower and Hayes have presented a complex,
hierarchical, recursive model of the composition process
which depicts the writer as balancing multiple constraints
while solving the problem of expressing ideas clearly in
his or her writing (Flower and Hayes, 1977, 1980, 1981).
This recursive problem-solving model is one that has
replaced the former linear stage model of composing.

Other researchers focusing on the behavior of writers

at work reveal differences in planning, composing and

36

revising strategies of Skilled and less-skilled writers.
Stallard (1974) noted greater pre-planning and mid-draft
planning being employed by better student writers as they
worked to communicate their ideas, often changing groups of
words and even paragraphs to achieve their communication
goals. In contrast, poor writers planned less before
writing, stopped less often to review their work, were less
clear about their purpose in writing other than to complete
an assignment, and were less likely to revise beyond
word-level changes such as Spelling or word substitution
(Stallard, 1974; Bloom, 1980; Sommers, 1980). These
findings indicate behavioral differences in the composing
of Skilled and less-skilled writers. Also they indicate
that less-skilled writers employ less complex composing
strategies when they write, possibly due to not possessing
a larger repertoire of composing and organizing strategies
that would assist them to use more sophisticated and
successful approaches to their writing.

Bridwell focused on the actual revisions made by
twelfth grade students in their papers. Surface and word
level changes constituted the majority of the revisions
counted. While some good writers revised their papers
extensively, others made few changes. On the other hand,
poor writers made large numbers of surface and word level
changes, while making fewer changes at phrase, clause and

sentence levels. No examples of changes in the over-all

37
content of the paper or the mode of discourse were found
(Bridwell, 1980). Another part of this study was the
development and validation of an instrument to tally
revisions made by writers in their papers.

Research on instruction in revision has not shown any
methods to be particularly effective in helping students to
independently revise their papers. Chaudron suggested that
peer-feedback at least had the advantage of helping
students develop audience awareness as they wrote(l983).
Beach (1984) found that practice in using a self-assessment
tool during revision resulted in improved organization,
support of arguments, and syntax choice in the work of
college freshmen.

The relative lack of success in teaching students to
revise has led some scholars to suggest that a different
composing medium is needed to help students become more
successful writers. The ease of recording and modifying
text and of producing printed copies of successive drafts
of a text on a word processor has led several researchers
to use word processors with student writers. Schwartz
(1982) suggested that word processors can overcome student
reluctance to modify their texts since text changes result
in creating a recopying job for the student. Shaughnessey's
earlier work (1977) on remedial writing students
highlighted the inhibiting factor that the act of

handwriting has on composing text. Daiute's work on memory

38

and composition suggested that limitations in short-term
memory capacity impede writers who try to compose and
revise simultaneously. Using a word processor to write can
lighten the burden on the writer by helping to capture
thoughts quickly, then easily review and modify the text.
Use of software such as Spelling and grammar checkers can
further free the writer from the drudgery of writing so his
or her energy can go into creating and writing (Daiute,
1983).

Since the early 1980's numerous articles on using word
processors in the classroom and on pre-writing tutorial
programs have been published (Littlefield, 1983; Bradley,
1982; Selfe and Wahlstrom, 1983; Burns, 1979, 1980; Wresch,
1982b). Research on writers using word processors has not
developed as quickly. Gould (1981, 1982) studied the
quality and style of writing and composing times of IBM
researchers who were experienced word processor users.
Collier (1981, 1983) and Bean (1983) examined college
freshmen using word processors for their papers. Bridwell
has looked at the composing behavior on word processors of
college upperclass business students (1983), as well as the
adjustment of graduate students who were experienced
writers to composing on word processors (1982, 1984).

Schwartz (1982), in a particularly cogent and readable
article, focused on the reasons word processors appear to

be the composing and instructional medium which will permit

39

teachers to teach composition more in accordance with the
findings of recent research. Student writers, in an attempt
to lessen the work ahead of them, strive to make a
mistake-free first draft. In this way, they feel, their
first draft can be their last draft. Several negative
consequences for their writing and their development as
writers results from this practice. Students consequently
resist changing their texts to any degree, since
substantial changes result in substantial recopying, a
distasteful task for students to perform. In turn students
are less aware of the need to re-evaluate and re-see their
writing and to rework portions of the text which do not
suit them. Students may not learn and practice important
composing and revising behaviors which are typical of the
behavior of more successful writers. Word processors, which
permit easy text entry, modification, and copy production
may help circumvent these barriers to growth in student
writers. Errors can be easily corrected. New wordings or
entire passages can be substituted. Multiple copies of
texts can be produced without penalizing the student. The
student is thus freed to concentrate on composing rather
than on handwriting. Schwartz's article clearly articulates
these issues.

In chapter two the literature relevant to the study
was summarized, starting with developments in the theory of

composing and concluding with the introduction of word

40

processors for composition instruction. If this technology
is to help the maximum number of students, it needs to be
introduced and its impact studied with students in the
public schools. It should be noted that research efforts to
date have focused on adult writers or college students.
While these inquiries are important, these populations are
by nature rather select groups. They do not give us
information on the writings of other groups of people when
they are using word processors. More importantly, they do
not focus on young, developing writers who may not, in
later years, receive the sort of advanced composition
instruction available to college students. If developing
writers are to be better understood and helped, research
efforts must turn to students in the public schools.

Chapter two summarized the precedent work in
composition research and computer composition relevant to
the study. In chapter three the procedures of the study

will be detailed.

CHAPTER THREE PROCEDURES

In order to assess the impact of word processor use
for in-class writing assignments on student revision
habits, written fluency, and quality of writing, a time
series or repeated measures design was employed to study
the writing of the students in a class using word
processors. In chapter three the study population and the
year's English curriculum, the procedures for collecting
writing samples, instruments used in the study, and the

data analysis procedures are explained.

HYPOTHESES

To assess the impact of word processor use on student
writing, several hypotheses were tested. The hypotheses
were stated as follows:

1. Students will perform more revisions on in-class
papers written on the word processor than on in-class
papers written by the traditional paper-and-pencil method.

2. Students using word processors for in-class writing
will perform more revisions beyond the surface and word
levels than they do when composing with paper and pencil.

3. Student papers will display fewer residual errors
in mechanics or grammar when written on the word processor

than when written by the traditional method.

41

42

4. Students will produce longer in-class papers on the
word processor than they produce by traditional methods.

5. Students will not display the same quality of
writing in papers written on the word processor that they
display in traditionally produced in-class papers.

POPULAT ION

Subjects for the study were ninth grade students from
a suburban/rural community. The community is located
approximately thirty miles north of Detroit.

Setting

The community, while predominantly middle-class,
includes both lower— and upper-middle class families.
Members of the socio-economic groups are represented
throughout the community and -are, therefore, represented in
both junior high schools in the community.

School Characteristics

The participating junior high school is the older of
the two junior high schools in the district and is the
oldest structure in the School system. It houses students
in grades seven through nine. The building enrollment for
the school year 1983 - 1984 was 753. The ninth grade class
numbered 259.

Students are required to take math, Science, social
science and English or remedial reading classes and fill

the remaining three hours of their school day from a

43
variety of elective classes, study hall, or service aid
positions in the building.
Selection of Population; Class Characteristics

Junior high English classes in this system are not
homogenously grouped, nor are they truly heterogeneously
composed. Students who have demonstrated exceptional
language facility are scheduled into honors sections;
students who experience severe reading and writing problems
are scheduled into a Special reading/English program. The
remaining students are then scheduled into "regular” or
"traditional" English classes. These classes, then, still
represent a wide range of ability and language fluency.
Scheduling limitations prevent construction of random
groups, yet a range of abilities and motivations was
present in the student group used in the study. Students in
this building do not have the option of choosing the
classes they will be in, although parent requests regarding
placement may be honored.

Since factors such as the meeting time of a class can
affect student performance and behavior, the target class
was chosen with an eye on meeting time. This class was the
earliest meeting "regular" English section taught by the
instructor using word processors in class.

Population Size
The class size was usually around twenty-eight

students. During the course of the year, a number of

44
students moved into the district and/or moved from the
district. Therefore, the number of students with an intact

series of writing samples was twenty.

CLASS CURRICULUM

The 1982 edition of the school course description
booklet describes ninth grade English as ”a course . . .
which has emphasis in the following areas: composition,
grammar, mechanics, usage, novels, short stories,
vocabulary, spelling, oral communication . . . study
skills". Instructors enjoy considerable latitude in
scheduling their sequence of study and in choosing class
activities and materials, but they are expected to work
within the framework provided in the course description.

Year's Sequence of Topics and Activities

The students involved in this study followed a
sequence of work similar to that followed by students in
other classes taught by this instructor. All classes were
involved in using word processors for in-class writing
within the framework of the prescribed curriculum. The only
difference was that the work of this particular class was
collected and saved to study the impact of word processor
use on their writing. What follows is a month-by-month

listing of the year's activities.

MONTH

September

October

45

ACTIVITIES

Study skills, outlining, context
clues

Pre-writing #1

Writing essay test answers;
practice

Essay question vocabulary

Pre-writing #2

Formed groups for producing
in-class newsletters on
topics of their choice.

Planned, researched, wrote
articles and glossaries

Began word processor use

Students at ninth grade camp

one week.

November

December

January

February

46

Continued typing and editing
group newsletters

Began short story unit - study
of literary terms, applica-
tion to stories, short
related writings, two tests

Completed group newsletters

Finished short story unit
Computer writing #1

Student speeches

Vocabulary unit: prefixes,
suffixes, context clues

Two short writings on computer

Critical reading work

Computer writing #2

Reviewed for semester exam

Exam

Grammar work

Read novel N9 Promises in_the Wind

47

March Project on the Great Depression
Read essays prior to writing
short persuasive essays

Computer writing #3

April Library work for paper supporting
thesis statement
Wrote thesis statement papers

Presented papers aloud in class

May Computer writing #4
Usage work in text book
Expository writing work
Clarity in writing work

Handwritten final writing

June Read novel Prove Yourself a Hero

 

Review for semester exam

Semester exam

Class work throughout the year also included writing
in journals on at least a weekly basis, spelling and
vocabulary work, and literature selections from Vgige
magazine published by Scholastic. Many activities

throughout the year included writing assignments on various

48

topics.

COLLECTION OF WRITING SAMPLES

Writing samples for the study were collected seven
times throughout the year. Topics were announced and
discussed with students a day in advance of the writing of
first drafts. This was done so that students could begin to
think about the topics and to consider possible approaches
for each topic. All writing was done in class. The testing
plan was based on the work of Sanders and Littlefield who
found that researched writing topics and time to pre-plan a
paper resulted in indications of improvement in writing
during a school term, which impromptu writings have
consistently failed to Show. Writings for the study were
prepared as regular class assignments, and the students
were not informed that their work was part of any sort of
study. In this way, the collection procedure adhered to
another finding of Sanders and Littlefield, that writing
test conditions should be as Similar to regular writing
conditions as possible to gain a more accurate picture of
what the students have learned, and how they can and do
write (Sanders and Littlefield, 1975).

First drafts were collected at the end of the first
day, whether or not students were done. At the beginning of
class the next day students could finish their first drafts

or begin working on their second drafts. Handwritten papers

49

were completed in class the second day of the procedure.
Once the students began using the word processors, they
could begin their second drafts the second day if terminals
were available. Otherwise, students began working on posted
concurrent assignments. In this way, students either were
involved in typing and revising their papers or in working
on other class work until everyone in class was able to
complete his second draft. Students who were absent when
the rest of the class worked on their first drafts or began
their second drafts either completed the work during
subsequent class meetings or during a study hall.

References such as the dictionary and thesaurus were
available during class, however, the students did not have
access to dictionary software or grammar correcting
software. Students were permitted to converse while at the
terminals Since they often helped each other with system
commands and even with spelling. The instructor did not
read or comment on the papers in draft and refrained from
directing students in their revision of their papers during
class, although the instructor was available to answer
questions or to give assistance to students as they worked
on their second drafts. The instructor met with students to
talk about the papers briefly after second drafts had been
completed. At that time problems such as a student's misuse
of apostrophes in verbs might be discussed. In the main,

however, the instructor sought not to interfer with the

50

revising processes and decisions employed by the students.

WRITING SAMPLE TOPICS

The study was comprised of seven in-class papers. For
each paper the students wrote both a first and second
draft. Topics for the writings were presented and discussed
the day before students wrote their first drafts. Several
topics had been used as class writings in previous years by
the instructor and had proven to be topics that most
students could work with. Other topics grew out of related
reading done by the students, such as reading a condensed
version of the television script ”The Dollmaker' before the
last computer writing.The topics were designed to encourage
writing in the narrative mode. Having students writing in
only one mode of discourse was a goal in topic selection so
that changes in discourse modes would not negatively affect

quality of writing scores on the papers.

SCHEDULE OF WRITING SAMPLE TOPICS
The following is a listing of the topics assigned for
each of the seven papers. A more complete discussion of the

topics may be found in Appendix A.

Writing

Writing

Writing

Writing

Writing

Writing

Writing #7

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

51

Future autobiography (handwritten

revision)

Proverb story (handwritten

revision)

Theme story (computer revision)

Personal narrative about a child-
hood experience (computer

revision)

Account of an incident of unfair
treatment they experienced
or witnessed (computer

revision)

Account of an adjustment they've
made in their life

(computer revision)

Account of a hard lesson they've
had to learn sometime

(handwritten revision)

52

WORD PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES USED IN STUDY
Students worked at computers at either of two
locations in the building. Within the classroom itself were
five TRS-80 Model 4 terminals in network configuration.
This system included a DMP-400 printer. The word processing
package used on this system was Scripsit. The other
location was the building computer center where students
used six networked PET computers. The computer center was
staffed by two ninth grade student aides each hour, and a
supervising teacher was in an adjoining classroom during
the hour. These students used the .Storywriter word
processing program. Both word processing programs permitted
students to enter text, edit by adding and deleting, print,
and store their text. Scripsit permitted greater
flexibility in formatting, but was otherwise similar in its
functions although it is a more powerful word processing
package. Students could work at either location, however, a

paper started on one system had to be completed there.

STUDENT ORIENTATION TO WORD PROCESSORS

While some students had virtually no computer
experience, others had some experience. Lack of experience
did not seem to deter anyone from beginning to use the word
processors. Students had not had prior instruction in

keyboarding and generally cannot be described as touch

53
typists. Students reported becoming more familiar with the
keyboard as a result of their work in class. No one
reported undue difficulty in typing his papers nor refused
to type due to inexperience with the keyboard.

Student orientation to the system was kept at a
minimum; too many detailed instructions when first using a
system can overwhelm the new user and make learning more
difficult. Rather, students were Shown how to enter text
and were given additional instruction in manipulations such
as deletions as it was needed. Because of the amount of
writing in producing the group newsletters in October and
November, students had little difficulty with system
commands by the time they did the first computer writing

for the study in December.

TREATMENT OF STUDENT PAPERS

Once both drafts of the papers were completed, turned
in, and marked as class assignments, the papers were typed
in preparation for the study. The papers were retyped so
that the holistic scoring would not be influenced by
instructor marks on the original paper or by the appearance
of the paper itself. The papers were typed by a member of
the building parent volunteer program. The volunteer who
prepared the papers for the study works as a typist in a
legal office in the Detroit area and used a programmable

typewriter for this work. Thus the typed c0pies of the

54
papers were carefully prepared by a disinterested person
who was not involved in the study itself and who made no
corrections in the papers as she transcribed them.
Student names were not typed on the papers, although
random identification numbers were later assigned to the
papers in preparation for the blind holistic reading of the

papers.

INSTRUMENTATION

The revision tally instrument developed and tested by
Bridwell (1980) was used to record revisions made in
student papers. This instrument allows one to note the
presence of revisions at any of seven levels within the
text, progressing from changes in the form of a word
through changes within a sentence to whole text
transformations such as adopting a new topic or a new mode
of discourse. At each level except whole text, the rater
may note additions, deletions, substitutions, expansion to
a larger syntactic unit, or reduction to a smaller
syntactic unit. In brief, the Bridwell instrument has seven
levels or categories of changes: surface level (spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, verb form, abbreviations or
symbols or contractions versus full forms, singular versus
plural, morphological conditioning); lexical level; phrase
level; clause level (subordinate or independent not

punctuated as a sentence by the student); sentence level

55

(as punctuated by student); multi-sentence level; text
analysis (changes in function category, audience category,
over-all content of essay, total rewrite of essay with few
or no one-to-one correspondences). The Bridwell instrument
was selected for the study because it is one of the few
instruments presented in its entirety in the literature
rather than briefly described by the researcher. It is
particularly detailed and complete in its categories
compared to many instruments used in other studies. In
addition Bridwell provided reliability ratings of 84.43%
for levels and 79.51% for subclassifications of operations
(Bridwell, 1980, p. 205). Such data were not available on
most other instruments described in the revision research
literature consulted. A copy of the Bridwell instrument may
be found in Appendix B.

A tally sheet was prepared for recording word counts
and residual errors. Seven categories of errors were
counted: spelling, capitalization, sentence structure
(run-on sentences or fragments), punctuation, pronoun
reference, paragraphing, other (subject-verb agreement,
missing words).

Quality of writing was determined using a holistic
scoring method and readers who are experienced secondary
teachers. "Holistic scoring involves reading a paper
quickly for an overall or 'whole' impression. While

specific traits such as organization, syntax, originality,

56
and mechanics undoubtedly influence . . . a rater's
judgment, none of these traits is individually directly
addressed. What matters is how all traits work in harmony
to produce the final piece" (Spandel, 1981, p. 7). Raters
do not mark the papers, both to save time and to avoid
directing attention to a given aspect of the paper.
Customarily a four-point Scale is used to rate the papers
(Spandel, 1981). Myers cites research revealing interrater
reliability ratings between .70 and .80 if raters are
Specially trained prior to their administration of a
holistic scoring instrument (Myers, 1980, p. 3). Several
practical considerations also entered into the selection of
holistic scoring over methods. Besides being a reliable
scoring method, holistic scoring is fairly easy and quick
to administer. Anticipated limitations on the work time
available to the raters made this a desirable trait.
Finally the researcher had previously worked with the other
person involved in the holistic scoring for several years
on a number of projects, including a study where holistic
scoring had been used. The two raters had achieved a .67
level of correlation of holistic scores in the earlier
study. Thus it was felt a high level of agreement could
again be achieved in this study without an undue investment
of scoring time. A copy of the holistic rating guide may be

found in Appendix C.

57

ANALYS IS OF PAPERS

Analysis of the student papers began in June, 1984,
after the start of summer vacation. The raters included the
researcher and two other experienced secondary English
teachers. Training and practice in the use of the holistic
scale, the revision tabulation instrument, and
establishment of acceptable levels of agreement in ratings
preceded the analysis of the papers.

Analysis of revisions

Application of the Bridwell instrument to sample
papers posed unexpected problems for the raters. While the
categories are clear and non-overlapping, the student
papers contained text manipulations which were surprisingly
complex. Neither Bridwell's article nor her dissertation
contained the guidelines or definitions of each category
used by the raters in that study to achieve the high levels
of agreement which are reported. While the raters in this
study were able to locate revisions in student papers and
to agree what sort of change had been made, deciding in
which category to count some changes quickly emerged as a
problem. Dependent clauses had been moved from one sentence
to another, sometimes being structurally altered themselves
pin the process. Phrases were likewise moved around.
Multi-sentence passages were Similarly reworked and even
moved to new locations within the text. Actual counts of

revisions seemed like a difficult if not impractical task,

58
although the conceptual categories of the instrument seemed
useful.

At this point the researcher met with the research and
statistics consultant at the county intermediate district.
He suggested a scoring system to indicate the degree of
presence of each category of revision. The system has four
levels: 0 (no revisions of this type in this paper)

1 (one or two instances of this type of revision)

2 (three to five instances of this type revision)

3 (six or more occurrences of this type revision)
These guidelines were used for levels one (surface) through
five (sentence). For levels six (multi-sentence) and seven
(text analysis) the number of occurrences were judged in
relation to the length of the whole paper. When this rating
system was tried by the raters, close agreement could be
achieved, so analysis of the study papers could begin.

The two raters worked independently, tallying
revisions and scores on separate rating sheets for each
paper being studied. Periodically ratings were compared and
discrepancies resolved as the raters worked through the
body of student papers.

Tabulation of Residual Errors and Word Counts

The words in the second draft of each paper were
counted, and the tallies were recorded. In addition, counts
of residual errors were made on each paper. The seven error

categories tallied were spelling, capitalization, sentence

59
structure (fragments and run-ons), punctuation, pronoun
usage, paragraphing, and other (included subject-verb
agreement, missing words, verb form errors). These tallies
were performed by a single rater.
Holistic Scoring of Papers

Holistic scoring was performed by two raters who had
worked together using holistic scoring on a set of papers
in a previous project. This shared background of use of the
holistic instrument facilitated rater training and scoring
of the papers. The scoring scale was examined and discussed
prior to scoring of the papers. The writing topics were
also discussed before scoring began. The typed and coded
c0pies of the papers were organized by topic sets, but were
not arranged in the order in which they had been written
during the year. The two raters worked independently and
noted their scores on separate papers. Ratings were
compared on the first set of papers and periodically

thereafter during the scoring of the papers.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data sheets for the seven sets of papers were
compiled. They included all four types of data (revision
ratings from both readers, holistic scores from both
readers, word counts, error counts) prior to computer
entry. Statistical analysis of the data was performed at

the intermediate school district using the Statistical

60

Package for the Social Sciences.

SUMMARY

Chapter three described the study population and the
course of study followed by the students. Further, this
chapter described procedures for collecting the writings
and treatment of the papers and instruments used in the
study. In chapter four the findings of the study are

presented.

CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS

The impact of using a word processor for in—class
writing assignments on several facets of student writing
was the focus of the study. Bridwell's revision instrument
was used to collect data on the number and types of
revisions made by students in a series of writings both off
and on word processors. Word counts of each paper provided
data on writing fluency off and on the word processor. A
holistic rating scale was used to determine the quality of
student writing in the samples done off and on the word
processor. Counts of residual errors in the final drafts of

the papers form the last category of data.

NULL HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED

Several facets of the impact of word processor use on
student writing were studied. These facets include
revisions made between drafts, uncorrected errrors,
fluency, and quality of writing. Changes in these areas
were test in several hypotheses.

1. There will be no difference in the number of
revisions made by students in their papers written with the
word processor and their papers written without using the

word processor.

61

62

2. There will be no difference in the levels of
revisions as recorded on the Bridwell scale in student
papers written with the word processor and papers not
written with the word processor.

3. There will be no difference in the number of
residual errors found in papers written by students on the
word processor and student papers not written on the word
processor..

4. There will be no difference in the length of
student papers written on the word processor and papers not
written on the word processor.

5. There will be no difference in the holistic score
assigned student papers written on the word processor and

student papers written without using the word processor.

STATISTICS USED IN DATA ANALYSIS

Non-parametric statistics were used in the analysis
because of the characteristics of the data. Two statistical
tests are available for use with repeated measures on the
same pepulation, the analysis of variance for parametric
data and Friedman test for nonparametric data (Siegel,
1956, p.160). The limited range and ordinal nature of the
holistic scores (a l - 4 rating scale) and of the revision
ratings (0 - 3), along with the limited number of papers in

each set (20) necessitated the use of the Friedman test to

63
analyze the data from the seven writing samples. Siegel, in
his classic work on non-parametric statistics, asserts that
when data to be analyzed depart from the criteria defining
parametric data, the Friedman test is to be used (Siegel,
1956, p.160). To check interereader reliability of the
holistic scores and revision ratings, the Spearman rank
correlation coefficient was used. The Spearman coefficient
is the adaptation of the Pearson product moment correlation

for use with ordinal data (Roscoe, 1969, p. 82).

DATA RELATING TO HYPOTHESIS ONE

The data related to hypothesis one consist of
inter-rater reliability ratings and the data related to
number of revisions made at each of the seven levels on the
Bridwell instrument. Scores in each category ranged from
zero to three, expressing the extent to which the
respective revision was present in a paper. Thus the
potential range of summed rater one and rater two scores
was zero to six.

To facilitate testing of hypothesis one, seven
sub-hypotheses were formed to test the number of revisions
made at each of the seven revision levels.

Spearman Correlations for Revision Ratings

To determine the inter-rater relability of the

revisions ratings, each rater's scores for each revision

level (surface through text analysis) for all papers in

64
each of the seven writings were summed. The Spearman
correlation was then used to establish the correlation
between rater one and rater two for each of the seven
revision levels throughout the body of student papers.

Table l. Rater Correlations on Revision Ratings

Writings l - 7 (N=20)
Level Correlation
Surface .76 *
Lexical .73 *
Phrase .36
Clause .39 **
Sentence .50 **
Multi-sentence .96 *
Text analysis .94 *

* p<.001 **p<.05

The data revealed a positive correlation at all levels
of revision ratings. Strong 4 positive correlations
significant at the .001 level were found in the surface,
lexical, multi-sentence, and text analysis scores.
Moderately strong correlations significant at the .05 level

were found in the clause and sentence level.

65
Data Related to Sub-Hypothesis la.
Surface Level Revisions in the Papers

The following sub—hypothesis was tested:

There will be no difference in the number of surface
level revisions made by students in their papers written
with the word processor and their papers written without
using the word processor.

Table 2. Differences in Surface Level Revisions

Sum Reader 1 and 2 Ratings, Writings 1-7

Mean Std. Dev.

Handwritten l 3.85 2.25
Handwritten 2 4.05 2.09
Computer 1 3.65 2.39
Computer 2 3.40 2.23
Computer 3 3.50 2.21
Computer 4 4.20 1.79
Handwritten 3 3.45 1.82
Chi-square = 3.6321 D.F.= 6

N=20

66

5,0'

Q5-

'10 h M
35' .

3.0.
.25»
1.0»

L§L

q

LU»

I

 

 

Figure 1. Mean summed values, surface level revisions

(N=20)

While there was some variation in the mean surface
level revision scores, surface level revisions in fact
dropped slightly when the students began to use the word
processors. Surface level revisions increased slightly on
the second handwritten paper, dropped below the intial
level on the the first computer writing, continued at lower
levels for the next two computer writings, rose somewhat on
the last computer writing, then dropped again on the final
handwritten paper. The mean scores ranged from 3.45 to
4.20, which was not a significant variation in the mean

surface level score. The null sub-hypothesis regarding the

67
number of surface level revisions made by the students must
be accepted.
Data Related to Sub-Hypothesis lb
Lexical Level Revisions in the Papers
The following sub-hypothesis was tested:
number of lexical

There will be no difference in the

level revisions made by students in their papers written
with the word processor and their papers written without
using the word processor.

Table 3. Differences in Lexical Level Revisions

Sum Reader 1 and 2 Ratings, Writings 1-7

Mean Std. Dev.
Handwritten l 3.60 2.35
Handwritten 2 3.00 2.00
Computer 1 2.85 1.87
Computer 2 3.00 2.00
Computer 3 3.15 1.98
Computer 4 2.95 1.19
Handwritten 3 4.15 1.93
Chi-square = 5.9946 D.F. = 6 p<.423

N=20

68

. a.
' ‘9

«4.4;
0015
I‘fi

 

 

.25"-
QE-
(3.).
[.0 b
tb’r
O
H. H; c, c1 03 ca as

Figure 2. Mean summed values, lexical level revisions
N=20).

From a mean score of 3.60 on the first handwritten
papers, the mean lexical level score dropped to 3.00 on the
second handwritten paper and continued within a close range
through the four computer papers. As figure 2 depicts,
lexical revisions increased Sharply on the final
handwritten paper; however, there was no significant
difference in the lexical revision scores for the seven

writings. The null sub-hypothesis must be accepted.

69
Data Related to Sub-Hypothesis 1c
Phrase Level Revisions in the Papers

The following null sub-hypothesis was tested:

There will be no difference in the number of phrase
level revisions made by students in their papers written
with the word processor and their papers written without
using the word processor.

Table 4. Differences in Phrase Level Revisions

Sum Reader 1 and 2 Ratings, Writings l-7

Writing Mean Std. Dev.
Handwritten l 3.10 1.92
Handwritten 2 2.90 1.55
Computer 1 1.80 1.67
Computer 2 2.35 1.76
Computer 3 2.60 2.16
Computer 4 2.20 1.67
Handwritten 3 2.65 1.39
Chi-squre = 5.148 D.F. = 6 p<.525

N=20

70

$c~
15'
40'
35'
30-
1m
1‘5'
‘10 if
std

r

 

 

1 j ’1 .3

Figure 3. Mean summed values, phrase level revisions
(N=20).

The data indicate that students tended to make fewer
phrase level revisions in their papers using the word
processor than writing off the word processors. The lowest
level of phrase revisions occurred on the first computer
writing. The scores drifted up over the remaining four
writings in the study, but they never returned to the value
of the mean score on the first handwritten paper. The
differences in phrase revisions was not significant, so the
null hypothesis must be accepted.

Data Related to Sub-Hypothesis 1d
Clause Level Revisions in the Papers
The following sub-hypothesis was tested:

There will be no difference in the number of clause

71
level revisions made by students in their papers written
with the word processor and their papers written without
using the word processor.
Table 5. Differences in Clause Level Revisions

Sum Reader 1 and 2 Ratings, Writings 1-7

Writing Mean Std.Dev.
Handwritten 1 2.50 2.14
Handwritten 2 1.80 1.40
Computer 1 1.15 1.39
Computer 2 1.30 1.45
Computer 3 1.75 1.71
Computer 4 1.60 1.27
Handwritten 3 1.65 1.46

Chi-square = 5.6678 D.F. = 6 p<.46

N=20

72

 

 

H' H1 (1, cl c3 (:4 H3

Figure 4. Mean summed values, clause level revisions
(N=20).

From an initial mean score of 2.50, clause level mean
scores dropped on the next two papers. A moderate increase
in clause level revisions occurred on the second and third
computer writings, followed again by a lower score on the
final computer writing and a slight increase on the final
handwritten paper. The highest level of clause revisions
occurred on the first handwritten paper. The differences in
clause revision scores was not significant, so the null
hypothesis must be accepted.

Data Related to Sub-Hypothesis le
Sentence Level Revisions in the Papers

The following sub-hypothesis was tested:

There will be no difference in the number of sentence
level revisions made by students in their papers written
with the word processor and their papers written without

using the word processor.

73
Table 6. Differences in Sentence Level Revisions

Sum Reader 1 and 2, Writings 1-7 Ratings

Mean Std. Dev.

Handwritten l 3.15 2.18
Handwritten 2 2.60 2.01
Computer 1 1.80 1.82
Computer 2 2.20 1.39
Computer 3 1.65 1.84
Computer 4 1.85 1.23
Handwritten 3 2.10 1.89
Chi-square = 6.0750 6

N=20

74

‘10 t
3»; r
3,8
2.3.4

1

j

1.3
In" '
[.9 w

~¢

 

 

Figure 5. Mean summed values, sentence level revisions,
(N=20).

The highest summed mean score for sentence level
revisions occurred on the first handwritten paper. This
score declined on the next two papers, rose on the second
computer writing, dipped on the third and fourth computer
papers, and rose again on the final handwritten paper. The
difference in mean summed scores was not Significant, so
the null hypothesis is accepted.

Data Related to Sub-Hypothesis 1f
Multi-Sentence Revisions in the Papers

The following null sub-hypothesis was tested:

There will be no difference in the number of
multi-sentence revisions made by students in their papers
written with the word processor and their papers written

without using the word processor.

75
Table 7. Differences in Multi-Sentence Revisions

Sum Reader 1 and 2 Ratings, Writings l-7

Mean Std. Dev.
Handwritten l 4.10 2.27
Handwritten 2 4.10 2.20
Computer 1 4.75 1.89
Computer 2 3.35 2.66
Computer 3 3.45 2.76
Computer 4 2.40 2.48
Handwritten 3 2.70 2.32

Chi-square = 13.0288 D.F. = 6 p<.05
N=20

5.0 -
v.5 -
'1,0*

J

3.5
30‘
2:53
JoO r
1.51.-
(.00

CS»

I

1 1‘!

 

 

La
Hl H;_ C, Cr 93 is R3

Figure 6. Mean summed values, multi-sentence revisions

(N=20).

76

Students made a consistant level of multi-sentence
revisions on the first two handwritten papers. Figure 6
shows that multi-sentence revisions increased Sharply when
they wrote their first papers on the computer.
Multi-sentence revisions dropped off on subsequent
writings, never again attaining the level demonstrated in
the first handwritten papers. Both the greatest and
smallest summed mean scores for multi-sentence revisions
were achieved on computer-revised papers. The difference in
multi-sentence revisions was Significant at the .05 level,
so the null hypothesis is rejected. Due to the use of
non-parmetric statistics, the direction of the difference
was not indicated; however, the magnitude of difference was
significant. There was a difference in the number of
multi-sentence revisions made in word processed papers and
conventionally written papers.

Data Related to Sub-Hypothessis lg

Whole Text (Text Analysis) Revisions in the Papers

The following null sub-hypothesis was tested:

There will be no difference in the number of whole
text revisions made by students in their papers written
with the word processor and their papers written without

using the word processor.

77

Table 8. Differences in Text Analysis (Whole Text)

Revisions, Sum Reader 1 and 2 Ratings, Writings 1-7

 

 

Writing Mean Std. Dev.
Handwritten 1 2.20 2.65
Handwritten 2 1.15 2.08
Computer 1 2.65 2.39
Computer 2 1.40 2.09
Computer 3 0.90 1.65
Computer 4 0.45 0.94
Handwritten 3 0.45 1.00
Chi-square = = 6 p<.05
N=20

5m ~

1754’

mSJL

"Lb.”

LCC ~

1.75 .-

ua~

[.36 ..

[Jab

.75»

.60 r

J5»

: n. C, 91 43 C,1 63

Figure 7. Mean summed values, whole text (text analysis)

revisions (N=20).

78

AS shown in figure 7, revisions at the text analysis
level (changes in content, audience, mode) dropped between
the first and second handwritten papers, then peaked on the
first computer paper. These revisions dropped somewhat on
the second computer papers, then even dropped more sharply
on the third and fourth computer writings, remaining at the
same low level on the final handwritten paper. The
difference was significant at the .05 level, so this null

sub-hypothesis is rejected.

DATA RELATED TO HYPOTHESIS TWO

Two analyses of the revision scores were involved in
testing the second hypothesis. Total sum reader 1 and
reader 2 scores for each revision level in writings one
through seven provide an overview of the revisions made by
the students during the course of the entire study. Using
this procedure the range of the total scores was 0 to 42.
The null hypothesis being tested was:

There will be no difference in the levels of revisions
as recorded on the Bridwell scale in student papers written
with the word processor and papers not written with the

word processor.

79

Table 9. Profile of Summed Reader 1 and 2

Ratings by Levels of Revision for Writings 1-7

 

 

Level Mean Std. Dev.
Surface 26.10 6.37
Lexical 22.70 5.74
Phrase 17.60 4.77
Clause 11.75 4.25
Sentence 15.35 4.45
Multi-sentence 24.85 9.48
Text analysis 9.20 6.28
Chi-square 59.8607 D.F. = 6 p<.0001
N=20

3L8 '-

19 k

24-

11F

Jar

\‘3 -

lo -

I‘l '

I1 *-

lO .—

9 _

b )-

4 .

’1 .

O Surxqce Lepm Chums; Chung; sentence Mm, 1” an

Sent»: nu '3‘ 0M1 Slb

Figure 8. Profile of total reader 1 and 2 ratings by

levels, writings 1—7 (N=20).

80

From a total mean of 26.10 for surface level
revisions, the values of the total means decrease for
lexical, phrase and clause level revisions as figure 8
shows. This downward trend would be expected to continue in
the total mean scores for revisions at deeper text levels.
However, the mean total scores for sentence and
multi-sentence revisions, revisions involving larger text
manipulation, increase markedly, dropping again in the text
analysis mean, yet remaining at a fairly high level. The
Friedman analysis of variance indicated these differences
were significant at the .0001 level. The null hypothesis is

rejected.

DATA RELATED TO HYPOTHESIS THREE
Hypothesis three dealt with the number of residual

errors found in student papers written on and off the word
processor. Since several types of errors were tallied,
seven sub—hypotheses were formulated and tested. To
facilitate analysis of these data, the actual error counts
were converted to the rate of errors per hundred word.
Therefore, the rates are usually expressed as decimals
rather than whole numbers, but it is then possible to
compare long and short papers on an equal basis.

Data Related to Sub-hypothesis 3a

Residual Spelling Errors in Papers

The null hypothesis concerning spelling errors was

81

stated as:

There will be no difference in the number of residual

spelling errors found in student papers written on the word

processor and student papers not written on the word
processor.
Table 10. Differences in Spelling Error Rates

(Errors per Hundred Words) Writings 1-7

Writing Mean Std.Dev. Minimum Maximum
Handwritten l 1.72 1.33 .00 5.44
Handwritten 2 1.22 .99 .00 3.30
Computer 1 2.03 2.19 .00 8.13
Computer 2 1.69 'l.39 .00 5.14
Computer 3 1.30 1.44 .00 5.45
Computer 4 1.44 1.90 .00 6.96
Handwritten 3 1.16 1.15 .00 3.77
Chi-square = 8.3678 D.F. = 6 p<.2124

N=20

82

 

 

Figure 9. Mean spelling errors per hundred words, writings
1-7 (N=20).

The mean spelling error rate declined from the first
to the second handwritten papers, then reached its highest
level on the first computer paper. Spelling errors declined
on the second and third computer papers and rose slightly
on the fourth. The lowest spelling error rate came on the
final handwritten paper. Throughout the set of scores the
standard deviations approach or exceed the size of the
means, indicating large variation in the error rates of
individual student papers. There was no significant
difference in the spelling error rates on the computer and

handwritten papers so the null hypothesis is accepted.

83
Data Related to Sub-hypothesis 3b
Residual Capitalization Errors in Papers
The\ second category of errors tabulated was
capitalization errors. The sub—hypothesis was stated as:
There will be no difference in the number of residual
capitalization errors found in student papers written on
the word processor and student papers not written on the
word processor.
Table 11. Differences in Capitalization Error Rates

(Error per Hundred Words) Writings 1-7

Writing Mean Std.Dev. Minimum Maximum
Handwritten 1 1.57 1.96 .00 8.65
Handwritten 2 1.01 1.21 .00 3.87
Computer 1 0.58 0.56 .00 1.60
Computer 2 0.67 0.71 .00 2.67
Computer 3 0.51 0.97 .00 3.40
Computer 4 0.34 0.69 .00 2.68
Handwritten 3 0.33 0.53 .00 1.72
Chi-square = 18.5678 D.F. = 6 p<.01

N=20

84

L4 .-
MI "’
l.‘1 '-
l..l ~

 

 

H. H; Q‘ (L; db 4“! H

Figure 10. Mean capitalization errors per hundred words,
writings 1-7 (N=20).

From an initial high mean of 1.57 .capitalization
errors per hundred words on the first handwritten paper,
capitalization errors declined on the remaining six papers.
The error rates for all four computer papers were fairly
close and were considerably lower than the error rates on
the initial handwritten papers. The final handwritten paper
had an error rate virtually the same as the rate on the
last computer paper (.33 versus .34). The difference in
capitalization error rates was significant at the .01
level, with computer papers having fewer capitalization
errors than the initial handwritten papers and virtually
the same as the last handwritten paper.

Data Related to Sub-hypothesis 3c
Residual Sentence Structure Errors in the Papers

Sentence structure errors made up the third category

85
of errors counted. Examples of such errors are run-on
sentences and sentence fragments. The sub-hypothesis was
stated:

There will be no difference in the number of residual
sentence structure errors found in student papers written
on the word processor and student papers not written on the
word processor.

Table 12. Differences in Sentence Structure Errors

(Errors per Hundred Words) Writings l-7

Writing Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Handwritten l .42 .57 .00 1.96
Handwritten 2 .42 .72 .oo 2.75
Computer 1 .68 .62 .00 1.85
Computer 2 .48 .84 .00 3.53
Computer 3 .57 .69 .00 2.33
Computer 4 .38 .61 .00 2.01
Handwritten 3 .20 .28 .00 0.84
Chi-square = 10.6714 D.F. = 6 p<.099

N=20

86

 

 

Ev
.8-
.7-
.b»
.5-
.‘1 '-
.3 -
.1—
.\ -
C H‘ H; (1‘ C1. c) C“ a)

Figure 11. Mean sentence structure errors per hundred

words, writings 1-7 (N=20).

87

Mean sentence structure error rates were identical on
the first two handwritten ‘papers, although the maximum
error rate was higher on the second paper. Mean rates rose
by' over fifty percent on the first computer paper, dropped
on the second computer paper, rose slightly on the third,
and dropped again on the fourth. The final handwritten
paper had the lowest mean sentence structure rate of any of
the seven papers. The relatively large standard deviations
in each set of scores indicates great variation between
students in individual error rates for each writing. The
difference in sentence structure error rates was not
significant, so the null sub-hypothesis is accepted.

Data Related to Sub-hypothesis 3d
Residual Punctuation Errors in the Papers

The fourth sub-hypothesis dealt with punctuation
errors.

There will be no difference in the number of residual
punctuation errors found in student papers written on the
word processor and student papers not written on the word

processor.

Table 13.

(Errors per Hundred Words)

 

88

Differences in Punctuation Error Rates

Writings 1-7

 

Writing Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum
Handwritten l 3.31 3.15 0.43 14.05
Handwritten 2 4.06 2.71 1.52 12.09
Computer 1 3.98 2.99 0.59 11.00
Computer 2 3.36 1.94 0.00 6.49
Computer 3 2.16 1.58 0.00 6.52
Computer 4 2.79 2.22 0.00 7.25
Handwritten 3 1.97 1.91 0.00 6.60
Chi-square = 13.7196 D.F. = 6 p<.05
N=20

$§~

«aw

55~

¢o~

A5- \\\\\\~

9400 '

‘45."

1.9 r-

o.$' F"

0 H‘ H1 '4 03 C1 r:3
Figure 12. Mean punctuation error rates, writings

(N=20).

1-7

89

The highest mean residual punctuation error rate was
found on the second handwritten paper. When the students
moved to the word processors, the error rate dropped
slightly and then dropped further on both of the next two
computer writings. Punctuation errors increased moderately
on the fourth computer papers, then dropped to the lowest
overall level on the final handwritten paper. Since all
varieties of punctuation errors (commas, and marks,
apostrophes, quotation marks, etc.) were counted together,
it is not possible from these data to tell if certain kinds
of errors predominated or were responsible for the higher
error rates. No direction of difference was indicated since
non-parametric statistics were used. The difference in
error rates was significant at the .05 level so the null
sub-hypothesis is rejected.

Data Related to Sub-hypothesis 3e
Residual Pronoun Usage Errors in the Papers

The fifth sub-hypothesis dealt with errors in pronoun
usage. The errors tallied were incorrect pronoun case (Him
and I ,went) and failure to provide an antecedent for a
pronoun. The sub-hypothesis to be tested was:

There will be no difference in the number of residual
pronoun usage errors found in student papers written on the
word processor and student. papers not written on the word

processor.

90
Table 14. Differences in Pronoun Usage Errors

(Errors per Hundred Words) Writings 1-7

 

 

Writing Mean Std.Dev. Minimum .Maximum
Handwritten 1 .14 .37 .00 1.40
Handwritten 2 .08 .20 .00 0.74
Computer 1 .09 .21 .00 0.77
Computer 2 .10 .38 .00 1.67
Computer 3 .12 .31 .00 1.10
Computer 4 .10 .25 .00 0.80
Handwritten 3 .10 .27 .00 0.85
Chi-square = .1821 D.F. = 6 p<.9999
N=20

.mv

.v3 .

on: ,_

.11 .

.u. n

da-

.09 P

.W*

:01 ’

.01 -

c H u c c c c H

a 3. \ J- 3) ’1 .5

Figure 13. Mean pronoun errors per hundred words, writings

1-7, (N=20) o

91
Pronoun usage error rates remained fairly steady and
low throughout the year. The highest mean error rate
occurred on the first handwritten paper. The error rate on
the second handwritten paper was about half as large and
was the lowest error rate of the seven writings. Pronoun
errors rose slightly as the students began their computer
papers but remained steady throughout the year. The
difference in error rates was not significant, so the null
hypothesis is accepted.
Data Related to Sub-hypothesis 3f
Residual Paragraphing Errors in the Papers
Errors in paragraphing were the sixth category of
errors counted. The sub-hypothesis tested was:
There will be no difference in the number of residual
paragraphing errors found in student papers written on the
word processor and student papers not written on the word

processor.

92
Table 15. Differences in Paragraphing Errors.

(Errors per Hundred Words) Writings 1-7

 

 

Writing Mean Std.Dev. Minimum Maximum
Handwritten 1 .46 .76 .00 2.70
Handwritten 2 .39 .86 .00 3.85
Computer 1 .57 .72 .00 2.35
Computer 2 .16 .34 .00 1.21
Computer 3 .07 .22 .00 0.76
Computer 4 .08 .27 .00 1.05
Handwritten 3 .25 .39 .00 1.18
Chi-square = 9.4928 D.F. = 6 p<.1477
N=20

.1

55‘—

w—

x:-

.10 ..

5 3' '-

w~

(15‘.

.30 ..

.05“ -

JO»

:05.»

G H, H). C'l C; as C.‘ H

Figure 14. Mean paragraphing errors per hundred words,

writings 1-7 (N=20).

93

Both the highest and lowest mean paragraphing error
rates were found on the computer-revised papers. The
highest error rate occurred when the students did their
first computer papers. The lowest rate of paragraphing
errors was found on the third computer paper, nearly the
same rate as found on the fourth computer papers.
Paragraphing errors increased on the final handwritten
papers. The difference in error rates was not significant,
so the null sub-hypothesis must be accepted.

Data Related to Sub-hypothesis 3g
Residual Miscellaneous Errors in the Papers

The final sub-hypothesis concerned other errors. This
included errors in subject—verb agreement, omitted words,
and incorrect verb forms. The sub-hypothesis was:

There will be no difference in number of residual
errors (other than spelling, capitalization, sentence
structure, punctuation, pronoun usage and paragraphing)
found in student papers written on the word processor and

student papers not written on the word processor.

Writing

Table 16.

(Errors per Hundred Words)

Handwritten 1

Handwritten 2

Computer 1

Computer 2

Computer 3

Computer

Handwritten 3

Chi-square

N=20

Figure

writings 1-7 (N=20).

 

94

Differences in Miscellaneous Errors

Writings 1-7

 

Mean Std.Dev. Minimum Maximum
0.61 0.96 .00 4.28
0.49 0.59 .00 2.11
0.94 2.55 .00 11.65
1.08 3.75 .00 16.91
0.94 1.72 .00 7.61
4 0.52 0.93 .00 3.09
0.36 0.67 .00 2.83
3.9857 D.F. - 6 p<.678
1
LAL
in“
3.0-
.‘1 r
3-
o7 ""
ti (-
.3 -
.1 L
.l
C .
H‘ (41 C‘ ('2. Q3 ("1 ”'5
15. Mean miscellaneous errors per hundred

words,

95

Students made more miscellaneous errors once they

moved to the computers, showing increases on both the first

and second computer writings. The error rate then dropped

on the third and fourth computer writings, and hit the

overall low on the final handwritten paper. The difference

in these mean rates was not significant, so the null

hypothesis is accepted.

DATA RELATED TO HYPOTHESIS FOUR

Hypothesis four dealt with the length of the papers
written by students on and off the word processor. The null
hypothesis to be tested was:
There will be no difference in the length of student
papers written on the word processor and papers not written
on the word processor.

Table 17. Differences in Total Word Counts

Writings 1-7

Writing Mean Std.Dev. Min. Max.
Handwritten 1 299.55 79.60 185 474
Handwritten 2 242.15 49.73 136 337
Computer 1 376.35 222.35 143 841
Computer 2 248.90 148.48 75 595
Computer 3 170.65 91.43 82 426
Computer 4 157.65 44.19 100 287
Handwritten 3 195.80 80.47 106 406
Chi-square = 57.3696 D.F. = 6 p<.001 N=20

96

«w—
5W'
yet
540 *-
sA) »
51m-
lfc -
.450

E
130”

L” *’

 

 

U H , .41 g cL c 3 c“ a}
Figure 16. Mean word counts, writings 1-7 (N=20).

The mean word count dropped somewhat from the first to
the second handwritten papers and sharply increased on the
first computer writing. The mean word count then returned
to nearly the same value as on the second handwritten
paper, then dropped again on the last two computer
writings, rising somewhat on the final handwritten paper.
The difference in magnitude was significant, although the
direction of difference was not indicated. The difference
is significant at the .001 level, so the null hypothesis is

rejected.

97
DATA RELATING TO HYPOTHESIS FIVE

Hypothesis five dealt with the quality of writing in
the word processed and non-word processed student papers.
The null hypothesis being tested was:

There will be no difference in the holistic score
assigned student papers written on the word processor and
student papers written without using the word processor.

The Spearman rank correlation was used to ascertain
the level of correlation between the two readers. The
holistic scores assigned by the two readers were summed
prior to testing the null hypothesis.

Spearman Correlations for Holistic Scores
Table 18. Holistic Score Reader 1 and 2 Correlations

Writings 1-7

Writing Correlation
Handwritten 1 .08
Handwritten 2 .49
Computer 1 .58 *
Computer 2 .50 *
Computer 3 .67 **
Computer 4 .68 **
Handwritten 3 .37

*p<.05 **p<.01 N=20

98

Moderate to strong positive correlations were
indicated for the scores on the four computer writings. The
two higher correlations were both significant at the .01
level.

Differences in Summed Holistic Ratings

The difference in quality of writing of the sets of

student papers was tested by the analysis of variance.
Table 19. Differences in Summed Holistic Ratings

Writings 1-7

Writing Mean Std.Dev. Min. Max.
Handwritten l 4.30 .86 3 6
Handwritten 2 4.15 .99 6
Computer 1 4.15 1.30 2 7
Computer 2 4.80 .95 3 6
Computer 3 4.80 1.24 2 8
Computer 4 4.60 .94 4 7
Handwritten 3 5.00 .92 4 7
Chi-square = 10.392 D.F. = 6 p<.1l

N=20

99

 

 

3‘.C "
7.84}. W
«0'
3.5 >
3.0 -
1:51"
1,0!
1,5 ‘-
LO"
5.
‘F
L h
u H C c c c n

Figure 17. Mean summed holistic scores, writings 1-7.

After an initial summed mean of 4.30, the mean value
dipped slightly on the second handwritten paper and
remained at the level on the first computer paper. The mean
summed score rose over a half point on the second computer
paper and remained at the level on the third computer
writing. A slight decline in the mean was seen on the
fourth computer paper followed by a increase on the final
handwritten paper. The difference in quality of writing
between the sets of papers was not significant, so the null

hypothesis is accepted.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Five hypotheses were tested. To facilitate testing of
two of the hypotheses, sub-hypotheses were created and

separately tested. The following section summarizes the

100
results of the data analysis.
Null Hypotheses Which Were Accepted

Several of the null hypotheses and sub-hypotheses were
accepted. Of the sub-hypotheses for the respective
categories of revisions, sub-hypotheses la (surface level),
1b (lexical level), 1c (phrase level), 1d (clause level),
and 1e (sentence level) were accepted. In each instance
there was no significant difference in the presence or
pervasiveness of the type of revision in papers revised by
handwritten means versus the papers which were revised on
the word processors. The hypothesis dealing with the number
of residual errors in papers was also restated as several
sub-hypotheses. Of these null sub-hypotheses, 3a (residual
spelling errors), 3c (residual sentence structure errors),
3e (residual pronoun usage errors), 3f (residual
paragraphing errors), and 3g (residual miscellaneous
errors) were accepted. There was no significant difference
in the error rates for these five categories of errors in
the word processed papers versus the handwritten papers.
Finally the difference in the quality of writing scores
assigned to handwritten versus word process<:)papers was
tested in the fifth hypothesis. No signficant difference
was found in the holistic scores assigned to word processed
and handwritten papers.

Null Hypotheses Which Were Rejected

Several of the null hypotheses were rejected. Of the

101

sub-hypotheses related to the presence of various levels of
revisions in the papers sub-hypotheses 1f (multi-sentence
level) and 1g (text analysis revisions) were rejected.
There was a significant difference in the presence of these
two types of revisions between the handwritten and the word
processed papers. The profile of the types of revisions
made in the body of papers was tested under the second
hypothesis. The profile of revisions made by the students
was significantly different from the expected profile of
revisions, with the numbers of sentence, multi-sentence,
and text analysis revisions sharply deviating from the
expected profile. Of the null sub-hypotheses dealing with
residual errors in the papers, sub-hypotheses 3b (residual
capitalization errors) and 3d (residual punctuation errors)
were both rejected. Word processed papers contained
significantly fewer capitalization and punctuation errors
than the handwritten papers. The last null hypothesis to be
rejected was the fourth, dealing with the length of word
processed and handwritten papers. Data analysis revealed
that the mean handwritten paper length was significantly
greater than the mean word processed paper length.

The interpretation these findings and their

instructional implications are discussed in chapter five.

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The impact of in-class use of word processors for
composition assignments on student writing was examined in
the study. Specifically the impact of word processor use on
the number of revisions made by students at each of the
seven levels categorized in the Bridwell revision
instrument, the length of the papers, residual errors in
the papers, and the quality of writing evidenced in the

papers were examined.

STUDY SUMMARY

A class of ninth grade English students used word
processors for a number of in-class compositions. As
participants in a first-year program, students had not been
instructed specifically in either using the word processor
to revise or in revision strategies in general. During the
first month of school the students wrote two in-class
papers, revising the papers using paper and pencil. The
class began using the word processors in October and used
them for a class newsletter project in October and
November. The first computer writing for the study was done
by the students in December, in which students wrote their
first drafts by hand and typed and revised their papers on

the word processors. No students in

102

103
the study composed their first drafts at the computer.
Three more computer writings were completed in the same
manner in late January, late March, and mid-May. A final
handwritten paper was written in late May.

Student papers were typed by a member of the school
parent volunteer program. These typed papers, identified by
only a random identification number, were then read and
holistically scored. Residual errors in the second drafts
were then tallied as were the word counts of the papers.
Revisions made by the students as they prepared their
second drafts were examined and recorded. These various
data were analyzed at the intermediate school district

using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESES AND FINDINGS

Five hypotheses were tested in the study. The
findings relevant to each of the hypotheses will be
presented in this section.

Hypothesis One Findings

Students will perform more revisions on in-class
papers written on the word processor than on in-class
papers written by the traditional paper-and-pencil method.

To test this hypothesis seven null sub-hypotheses were
stated, each sub-hypothesis dealing with a different
revision level or category. Thus the level-by-level mean

summed revision scores for the series of papers were

104

compared.

Surface Level Revisions. Mean summed scores for surface
level revisions ranged from 3.40 on the second computer
writing to 4.20 on the fourth computer writing. The
Friedman ANOVA revealed no significant difference in the
amount of surface level revisions made by students on or
off the computers. The students continued to make changes
in spelling, capitalization, punctuation or form of words
at a consistant level throughout the year. On the first
three computer writings students made fewer surface level
changes than in the first two handwritten papers and
virtually the same as on the final handwritten paper where
the mean summed score was 3.45. Although word processors
make changes in surface level features particularly easy,

students did not change their revising behavior at this

level.
Lexical Level Revisions. Lexical revision scores declined

following the first writing and remained fairly constant
through the second handwritten and four computer papers.
Lexical revisions increased markedly on the final
handwritten paper. The statistical analysis indicated that
there was no significant difference in these scores. Again,
students did not change their revising habits at the

lexical level. Simply having access to techology that made

105
this type of change easy did not result in the students

making more lexical level changes.

Phrase Level Revisions. The highest mean summed phrase

 

level scores were found on the first two handwritten
papers. The Friedman ANOVA indicated no significant
difference in the phrase level scores on the various
papers. Students made fewer phrase level changes as the
year progressed whether using computers or rewriting by

hand.

Clause Level Revisions. Clause level revision scores
likewise declined from the initial level (2.50) on the
first handwritten paper. No significant difference was
found in the clause level revision scores throughout the

year.

Sentence Level Revisions. Sentence level revision scores
declined from the initial level. Although the subsequent
means were lower, the size of the standard deviations of
some sets of scores (computer 1 mean 1.80 Standard
deviation 1.82, computer 3 mean 1.65 standard deviation
1.84) indicates wide variation in the sentence level
revising done by some students. Some students revised more
extensively and more consistantly than their classmates.

The Friedman ANOVA, however, revealed no significant

106
difference in the sentence level revision scores of the

students from writing to writing.

Multi-sentence Revisions. At the multi-sentence level a
signficant difference in the revision scores was found at
the .05 level. Examination of the papers suggests that
students were operating at the idea level, reading a
sentence or short passage, then recasting the idea in new
sentences after considering how best to express the idea in
mind. Rather than simply transcribing their first drafts as
they typed, students seem to have reconsidered the
expression of their ideas and rewrote successive sentences
to make their writing better match their expectations and
goals. It should be noted, again, that the size of the
standard deviations for each set of scores indicates great
variation in the degree to which students revised at the

multi-sentence level.

.Tgxt .Agglysis (Whglg_ Text) Revisions. Changes involving
large-scale revision of the text due to changes in the
function, audience, view point, or content of the paper
were found throughout all seven writings. The mean sum
score began at 2.20 and dropped almost in half on the
second handwritten paper. The score then rose to its
highest value (2.65) on the first computer paper. This

score then dropped by nearly fifty percent on each of the

107

successive computer writings and held steady at 0.45 on the
fourth computer and third handwritten papers. The data and
study design do not make clear the reasons for this
decline, although the interaction of the topics on the
revisions made by students may have been a factor. Another
factor in the decline was the trend to progressively
shorter papers as they wrote successive papers on the word
processors. In a shorter text there are fewer opportunities
to make large-scale text changes.

What is probably more important than the reasons for a
decline in the mean summed score over the successive
writings is the fact that throughout the year and on a
fairly regular basis students were making larger scale
changes in the content, function, or viewpoint of their
papers. 'Rather than settle for changes in words or phrases
as precedent studies suggested would happen, these students
regularly made alterations in their texts which
significantly affected the content or viewpoint or voice of
their papers. Rather than slavishly sticking to their
original plan for a paper, students made substantial
changes in their papers if their first draft did not suit
them.

Hypothesis Two Findings

Students using word processors for in-class writing

will perform more revisions beyond the surface and word

levels than they do when composing with paper and pencil.

108

The analysis of the summed rater 1 and rater 2 scores
for each revision category both confirmed some expectations
and revealed some unexpected findings. Not surprisingly the
category with the highest mean composite score was surface
level revisions, the category involving the easiest changes
to make. The mean summed scores then declined for lexical,
phrase, and clause level revisions, revisions involving
progressively larger portions of text. What was not
anticipated was the upsurge in mean summed score for
sentence level (15.35) and multi-sentence level (24.85)
revisions. The levels involving changes in actual chunks of
text and involving greater effort and risk-taking on the
part of the student writer were also levels at which
students consistantly made a great number of changes. While
the mean summed score for text analysis (whole text)
changes fell dramatically, students still made such changes
fairly regularly. This finding is in contrast to earlier
researchers such as Bridwell who did not report any
instances of such alterations in her study sample.

Hypothesis Three Findings

Student papers will display fewer residual errors in
mechanics or grammar when written on the word processor
than when written by the traditional method.

Seven categories of errors were counted in the papers:
spelling, capitalization, sentence structure, punctuation,

pronoun usage, paragraphing and miscellaneous errors. The

109
actual error counts were converted to rates of errors per
hundred words of text in each paper. Sub-hypotheses were
stated for the respective categories of errors. The
sub-hypotheses were tested by computing the mean error
rates (errors per hundred words of text) and then

performing a Friedman ANOVA.

Spelling Egggg Findings. The highest mean spelling error
rate occurred on the first computer paper, suggesting that
students had still not completely adjusted to balancing the
demands of typing, remembering system commands, and
adhering to the constraints of standard written English.
From that point, the mean error rate dropped on the next
two papers, rose slightly, and dropped to its lowest level
on the final handwritten paper. Although students made a
few more errors when they moved to using the word
processors, the new technology did not have a long—term
negative effect on student spelling. The analysis of
variance revealed no significant difference in the spelling

error rates on the student papers.

Capitalization Error Findings. Mean capitalization error
rates declined steadily throughout the year except for a
slight increase on the second computer paper. The change in
capitalization error rates was significant at the .01

level. The class did not receive special instruction or

110
practice in capitalization which could account for this
declining rate, so the decline appears attributable to the
use of the word processors. One feature of word processor
use which may have contributed to this decline in
capitalization may be the clear appearance of the printed
text on the word processor screen. Perhaps the appearance
of the text on the screen rather than in their own
handwriting contributes to identification - and, hence,
correction - of capitalization errors before producing the

final copy of the text.

Sentence Structure Error Findings. Sentence structure
errors remained fairly constant throughout the year and
differences between the error rates were not statistically
significant. Although sentence structure errors increased
somewhat on the first computer writing, they dropped back
nearly to the initial levels seen on the handwritten paper.
The general trend suggests that while students may have
made more sentence structure errors while still adjusting
to the word processors, using the word processors did not
cause a substantial increase in these errors over the
duration of the experience. The size of the standard
deviations indicates considerable variation between
students rather than a generalized reaction of all students

to a particular medium for revising.

lll
Punctuation Error Rate Elgélflgfi. Moving to the word
processor for revision did not result in students making
more punctuation errors than they had made in their
handwritten papers. The trend was for students to make
fewer punctuation errors on successive computer papers
except for the fourth computer writing. As students typed
and reviewed their texts on the word processors,
identification and correction of punctuation errors could
proceed more easily than when reviewing a handwritten text.
The ease of correcting text on the screen may also have
contributed to this declining rate of punctuation errors.
Since all punctuation errors were tallied together, it is
not possible to identify certain types of errors, such as
use of quotation marks, which may have predominated in

certain writings.

Pronoun Iggagg .3119; Findings. Pronoun errors remained
fairly constant throughout the year, appearing not to be
affected by the revising medium. Again, the size of the
standard deviations suggests that pronoun usage errors were
an individualized problem, not one primarily affected by
the use or non-use of the word processors. The difference

in the rates was not significant.

Paragraphing Error Findings. The mean rates for
O

paragraphing errors suggests that changing revising medium

112
- from handwritten to word processor or from word processor
to handwritten - contributed to an increase in paragraphing
errors. AThe highest error rate occurred on the first
computer paper, suggesting that students were less able to
concentrate as closely on paragraphing as they typed and
used system commands in producing their papers, but were
better able to attend to paragraphing as they grew more
familiar with the word processors. The difference in rates,

however, was not significant.

Miscellaneous Error Rate Findings. Although miscellaneous
error rates were generally higher on the computer papers,
the rates were not statistically significant. Some students
did make many more errors when they moved to the word
processors for their revising, suggesting that students
still need help in spotting errors such as subject-verb
agreement or verb forms. The neat, attractive appearance of
the text on the screen may have led students to believe the
text was correct because it looked so nice.

The data suggest that students did not make
significantly more errors as a result of working on the
word processors for their revisions. In most cases, there
was no significant difference in the error rates in the
respective categories on the seven sets of papers, except
for capitalization and punctuation error rates. In these

instances, the easy-to-read appearance of the text on the

113
screen and the simplicity of screen editing may have
contributed to the decline in errors. Errors were easier to
spot than in a handwritten paper, and corrections were easy
to make. The process of reviewing the text while typing may
also have led students to evaluate their writing more
closely than when they copied papers by hand. Other
categories of errors such as sentence structure errors,
spelling errors, paragraphing, or pronoun usage were not as
easily detected on the screens by students, suggesting that
simply a change in technology or writing medium will not by
itself erradicate these errors. Additional instruction in
identifying and correcting such errors appears to be
needed.
Hypothesis Four Findings

The fourth hypothesis focused on the length of student
papers written on and off the word processor:

Students will produce longer in-class papers on the
word processor than they produce by traditional methods.

The pattern of the changes in mean paper lengths
suggests that changing revising medium accompanied
increases in the length of the student papers. Student
papers varied considerably in length for each of the seven
writings, however, the general trend was for longer papers
to be written after changing from handwritten to word
processed or from word processed to handwritten methods.

The mean lengths of the computer papers shows that

114
successive papers were shorter through the series of four
word processed papers. Nothing in the topics nor the way
the topics were presented and explained in class should
have been accountable for progressively shorter papers
throughout the year. The students were not skilled typists
at the start of the year, and the program did not provide
keyboard instruction for the students. While no students
protested using the word processors - in fact, students
were generally quite eager to begin typing their second
drafts - the progressively shorter computer papers suggests
that the lack of keyboard skill influenced the length of

the papers written by the students. There was a significant
difference in the length of the papers. Papers from
students with prior keyboard proficiency might not
demonstrate this trend. In addition these students would be
able to actually compose their papers at the terminals
rather than handwrite their first drafts as the students in
this study did. The effect of the lack of typing skill on
the mean length of papers produced is underscored by the
longer mean length of the final handwritten paper.
Hypothesis Five Findings

The fifth hypothesis dealt with the effect of word
processor use on the quality of the students' writing:

Students will display the same quality of writing in
papers written on the word processor that they display in

traditionally produced in-class papers.

115

The mean summed holistic score dropped slightly on the
second handwritten paper and remained at the same value on
the first computer writing. The move to the word processor
apparently did not affect the quality of the papers
produced by the students. The mean summed score increased
on the second computer paper (to 4.80), and remained at
that level on the third computer paper. A drop of .20 (to
4.60) was recorded on the fourth computer writing, followed
by the highest mean summed score (5.0) -on the final
handwritten paper. The difference in the scores was not
significant.

The move to using word processors did not
significantly affect the quality of the students' writing
negatively or positively. The general direction of the
mean summed holistic scores was upward throughout the year,
apparently unaffected by the move to word processors. The
move to a new revising medium neither hurt nor dramatically
improved the quality of the papers being written. Changes
in technology will not singlehandedly modify the more
powerful factors of natural langugage ability, previous
experience and the overall instructional program. On the
other hand, these findings should not discourage the
adoption of word processors in composition instruction. The

technology proved to be neither an obstacle nor a boon to

116

the improvement of the quality of student writing.

INSTRUCTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

From the findings of the study certain instructional
recommendations and conclusions may be drawn. These
observations deal with student behavior 'while revising,
student editing skills, student keyboarding skills, and the
impact of a new technology on the quality of student
writing.

Student Revising on Word Processors

First, the process of typing and reviewing text during
preparation of second drafts encouraged students to revise
their papers more extensively than might have been
expected. Rather than simply transcribe their texts before
printing them, students made extensive and pervasive
changes in their papers. Sentences and entire passages were
rewritten. Even the direction and content development of
some papers changed. These changes exceeded the changes
expected from students, as described in previous research
of typical students while writing and revising. Changes in
spelling or mechanics, single words, phrases and clauses
were anticipated. However, pervasive changes of sentences
and large portions of the texts were not anticipated on a
large scale. Yet using word processors, these students
appeared to deal with their texts idea by idea, recasting

sentence after sentence as they worked. Rather than being

117
satisfied with changes which would have been "easy" on the
word processors, students not only entered text but
simultaneously performed revisions in the text at deeper
text levels.

This is not to argue in favor of changing text for the
sake of changing. What emerges as important is the
students' willingness to modify their texts. Students did
not receive special instruction in revision and ways to
modify text during the year, yet they demonstrated greater
willingness to experiment with their writing than was
expected. Willingness to take risks with their texts, to
restate and recast their ideas, emerged as a behavior of
the students as they revised on the word processors.
Willingness to take risks and try new ways of expressing
ideas has been identified as a key behavior of more skilled
writers and revisers. Even in the initial handwritten
papers the students made text modifications which reflected
all seven of Bridwell's revision categories. Changes of
these sorts would not have been expected based on previous
studies of typical student writers. Moving to , a new
revision medium, the word processor, did not halt revision
of the multi-sentence or text analysis magnitude. WOrd
processor use appears to have fostered this important
behavior in the students in this study.

Given this new ease of text production and student

willingness to experiment with their texts, composition

118
instructors may be able to utilize writing conferences in
their classrooms more widely than they have. The fluid
composing medium appears to encourage student
experimentation while removing the burden of handcopying
successive drafts of papers. Students appear to become more
willing to change their texts rather than resent Changes or
corrections. Texts can be revised more easily in process
rather than simply evaluated as end products. Consequently,
two obstacles to using writing conferences more commonly in
the secondary classroom may have been removed.
Student Editing of Text on Word Processors

Second, the composition instructor should be cautioned
that adopting word processor techology in the classroom
will not be a panacea to certain problems of composition
and editing instruction. While students adjust easily to
word processor use, certain student problems in the editing
of text will not automatically disappear simply as a result
of the new technology. Student correction of capitalization
and punctuation errors did improve in the study, possibly
due to the ease of text review and modification on the
terminal screen. On the other hand, errors in spelling,
sentence structure, pronoun usage, paragraphing, and
miscellaneous errors did not by themselves decrease when
the students moved to word processors. Having the
techological power to make changes easily does not insure

that students will identify the need to make the changes.

119

Certain strategies might be implemented to assist

students in identifying more of the errors in usage and
mechanics in their papers. Peer editing of texts may help

students identify more errors. In addition direct

instruction in identifying such errors seems to be
indicated. This instruction might logically be followed by
short exercises on the word processor in which the student
would load a file of a practice text, identify the errors
in the exercise text, make the corrections on the screen,
and print the work for teacher inspection. In this way a
student would receive both instruction in avoiding certain
errors in written English and at the same time become more
skilled in using the word processor.
Student Keyboarding Skills

The mean length of student papers decreased on the
successive computer writings. While students were usually

eager to begin typing and revising, their lack of typing
proficiency appears to have negatively influenced their
fluency. While longer papers are not necessarily better
papers, students who consistantly produce short papers,
whether consciously or not, may not be adequately
developing their arguments or fully discussing their ideas,
electing to telescope their thoughts into truncated forms.
Mean paper lengths increased following a change in revision
medium, suggesting that a variety of composing media should

be available to students and should be incorporated into

120
instructional strategies.
Technology and Quality of Writing

As figure seventeen revealed, the mean summed holistic
scores dipped slightly after the first handwritten paper,
held steady during the move to word processor use, then
rose by over half a point on the second computer paper. The
summed mean score on the third computer paper was identical
to the score on the second computer paper. A slight decline
was seen in the mean summed score of the fourth computer
paper, followed by an increase on the final handwritten
paper. This final score was the highest of the series of
scores. The Friedman analysis revealed there was no
significant difference-in the mean scores of the papers.
The general trend over the year was toward higher scores on
the papers, indicating an improvement in the quality of the
writing of the students; however, the analysis reveals that
moving on and off the word processors did not in itself
significantly affect the quality of student writing.

These findings suggest two things. An experience such
as moving to a new writing medium did not negatively affect
the quality of the student papers. The experience did not
harm their performance as writers. Adopting word processors
should not lessen the benefits for students of existing
composition programs. On the other hand, adopting word
processors as a writing medium did not result in any

particular improvements in student writing. In a time when

121
various claims are being made for pieces of software on the
market, this finding - using a word processor will not in
itself improve student writing - merits some attention.
What again emerges as more significant influences on the
quality of student writing are native ability, past
language experience and facility, and the total
instructional program in composition experienced by the

student.

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

Several recommendations for further research on
student composition on word processors may be derived from
the findings of this study. Some of the recommendations
pertain to the design of future studies, while others deal
with changes in the instruments used in future studies.

Design Recommendations

Care was taken in the study in the scheduling of the
in-class writings. Writings were not done on days such as
pep assembly days or the day students received their
scheduling materials for the senior high school since it
was believed that such activities would negatively affect
student performance. Nonetheless, the relatively long time
frame of the study - mid-September to late May - may have
resulted in general changes in student performance due to
the various physical, psychological, and social changes

experienced by these students during the year. The very

122

fact that students in this school are the oldest members of
the student body and are anticipating the move to the
senior high in tenth grade may have been an influence on
student performance. Therefore, students who are already in
a senior high school may be suitable population for a
similar study. Furthermore, a future study using a similar
design might be planned over a shorter period of time,
perhaps six to eight weeks, might be conducted. The design
for such a study could be one pre-writing, three computer
writings, one post-writing. The shorter time frame would
lessen the extraneous influences on the subjects' writing
and academic performance in general.

The fluency counts in the study were word counts on
the second (revised) drafts. While this provided
information on the lengths of the final papers, no data
could be gained on changes in length between the first and
second drafts. Perhaps more would be learned on fluency on
and off the word processor by comparing word counts of
first and second drafts of papers. As the student types his
paper does he write more? Does having to type the paper
truly inhibit the expression of the unskilled or
semi-skilled typist as the data in this study indicate?
Future studies utilizing first and second draft word counts
may provide such insights.

The small population of the study did not provide a

cross-section of student ability levels. As a result, it is

123

not possible from these findings to learn if all students
can use word processors beneficially. A large-scale study
of students would provide further information about the
ways students can use word processors in composition. Can
all levels of students use word processors equally well?
Will some ability level students use them differently than
others? What instructional strategies might be suggested by
these findings?

The findings of the study suggest that the lack of
typing ability inhibited student fluency on the word
processor. Future studies should control for this variable
by means of a short typing proficiency test before students
begin to use the word processors. In that way, the degree
to which lack of keyboard skills inhibits fluency on the
word processor could be better understood. These findings
would also be important to the many schools currently
facing questions about when and how to introduce
keyboarding skills to their students. Evidence whether the
lack of keyboard skills seriously hurts students in other
computer-use situations would assist people making
curriculum decisions and recommendations.

Similarly, future studies of student word processor
use might control for student attitudes toward writing. Not
all students care to write, even among those who write

well. Do students who hate to write use word processors the

124
same ways as students who enjoy expressing their ideas in
writing? Can word processor use affect student attitudes
toward writing, particularly if the students have access to
word processors over several years of their school lives?
These issues are still unexplored.

While revising behaviors on the word processor were a
focus of the investigation, students in this study did not
receive instruction in revising prior to or while using the
word processors. Whether such instruction in conjunction
with word processor use would effectively change their
revising and editing is not known. If revision/editing
instruction or use of a self-analysis instrument in
conjunction with the word processor would be an effective
instructional strategy, would students continue to revise
more effectively after the completion of such instruction
when they revised their papers independently? These issues
also need to be explored if better ways to foster student
growth in composition are to be found. A

In this study the writings of several students were
studied for a relatively short period, one school year. Yet
writing is not a skill or cluster of skills which develops
quickly or at a particular key age. Nor would it be
expected that students at all ages would utilize a word
processor in exactly the same ways. Further insights into
student computer composition may be gained from following

students over a longer period of time. Therefore,

125
longitudinal studies of students who have access to word
processors for in-class writing in several consecutive
grades are suggested.

Finally, a different mode of research may be more
appropriate in this field. The benefits from using word
processors may well lie in interactions. These interactions
may take the forms of peer composing and peer editing, in
combining work at the terminal with writing conferences to
maximize text development and refinement through the
flexibility of the electronic medium. Therefore, an
ethnographic study of students using word processors might
be more valuable than word/error/revision counts can be.

Instrumentation Recommendations

The four-point holistic scale was employed in this
study. Holistic scoring was chosen because it is a fairly
reliable procedure and one that does not require a great
investment of time per paper. The restricted range of this
instrument may have blurred any improvement in quality of
writing during the year. Students may have, indeed,
improved as writers during the year, yet the restricted
range (1 through 4) may have obscured this achievement.
Future studies should use instruments with a larger scoring
scale which would be more sensitive to changes in quality

of writing which may be seen in the papers.

126

REFLECTIONS ON THE STUDY

The focus of the study was on changes in several
factors of student writing following the introduction of
word processors into the procedure for writing papers in
class. While the data on revisions made in the papers,
residual errors in the papers, word counts and holistic
scores supply answers to several questions raised about
adoption of this new techology in the English classroom,
several important issues are not touched. While an
instructional innovation should be effective
instructionally, issues such as student reaction to the
innovation and practical issues such as class management
must also be considered.

Student Receptivity

Students in all classes, not just the study group,
were eager to use the word processors. Day after day, hour
after hour, I was greeted with the question, ”Are we going
to use the computers today?" Students repeatedly commented
how easy it was to correct their papers on the word
processors (even when all the corrections that should have
been made weren't). The attractive printed text was a
source of pride, particularly to students with poor
penmanship. In addition, they seemed more receptive and
open to corrections and changes suggested by their
classmates or assistance in proofreading their articles for

the newsletter project in October when we viewed their text

127
on the computer screen. This receptivity was in marked
contrast to the usual student response I have received in
other classes during an editing/proofreading conference
when we reviewed the handwritten text. Often in the past, I
could sense a resentment by the student of the need to make
changes or additions which would mean more writing for him
in preparing the second draft of the paper. When editing on
the computer screen, however, students did not seem to

resent making such changes, since the change was easy to

make and a new printed copy of the text was so easy to

produce.

My most marked example of this change in attitude was
a boy who did not care for English in the least, nor school
in general. Often he seemed to spend the class period
looking for ways to be rude and disruptive. Yet on one of
the later assignments in the year he made a point of asking
to work on the computer to correct some errors in a paper
he had typed the day before. I don't recall how effective
'he was at making the changes, but the fact that he asked to
be able to work on the paper more was, in itself,
remarkable. Other students showed a similar attitude
change, yet this one incident in particular stands out in
my memory. In addition to being more receptive to reworking
their own papers, the students delighted in proofreading
and pointing out errors in work I'd done on the word

processors during the day. This change in roles would not

128

have occurred without the word processors being available.

Besides being more eager to work on their papers
during class, students requested to come to the room from
study hall and even after school to complete work. This
first occurred in October as they worked on their
newsletters, yet some students came in to do work for other
classes, such as social science reports and descriptions of
projects and experiments for the school fair in the spring.
Never before did I have to pull out the plug and chase
people out of the classroom after school.

Student Orientation to Word Processors

I gave my students very few initial instructions when
they started to use the word processors. Instead as they
needed help - deletions or additions, for example - I would
show them how to make the corrections. I did not want to
overload them with documentation on the program and
overwhelm them with commands before they even began to use
the equipment. In time they learned how to save and load
their files and to make larger scale changes. Some students
became quite adept at using the system, while others still
needed help from me or from other students late in the
year. Yet the complexity of the system never kept anyone
from getting his work done.

Scheduling and Class Planning
The time required by students to complete a paper on

the word processor was often longer than anticipated. Some

129

students took longer than others to enter text, no doubt
due to their lack of typing speed. In addition, some
students made their work expand to fill the time available
- and then some. Consequently some sort of scheduling
mechanism was needed to give all students equal opportunity
to use the equipment. A rotating schedule which gave all
students a turn to type within a two- or three—day period
seemed to work best in the English classes, while in my
journalism class use of a waiting-to-type sign—up list
seemed more useful.

Also there was a need to assign concurrent work for
students not using the word processors. In a small
composition class students could be involved in peer
editing and conferencing, conferencing with the teacher,
continuing revision, and beginning or continuing on other
papers. During the first half of the work on the group
newsletters we operated on this basis. I felt as if I were
really teaching writing during this period. This work plan
could not be followed most of the rest of the year. Other
reading or written assignments were given. To help students
know what they had to do if they weren't typing on a given
day, I prepared weekly assignment checksheets for the
classes to help them know what had to be done and to keep
track of their progress.

Classes vary considerably in a key factor which

determines how a teacher can integrate word processors into

130

his routine. This factor is the students' ability to
tolerate concurrent activities in the room. Some classes
can easily handle two concurrent activities, while others
cannot. These differences must be recognized and
anticipated. The problem of classroom management cannot be
overlooked.
Teacher Familiarity with the Word Processor

The first frustration in the project was setting aside
enough time to use the software before starting the
students on the word processors. Time to learn to use the
word processor and knowing where to get help with questions
that would arise and problems with the equipment were the
first two problems. Yet these two factors can make or break
- or at least seriously frustrate - the introduction of
word processors in classrooms. From a practical standpoint
teachers will be more able to help students with problems
and to cope with the inevitable surprises that go with
computer use - system crashes, deleted files or disk
failures - if they can learn to use their system before
having to teach others. This familiarity, backed with the
knowledge that technical help is available reasonably
quickly, goes a long way to help a project get off the
ground. Not so obvious yet important is the contribution
made by teacher familiarity and enthusiasm for an

innovation in helping students learn to use the innovation.

131
Conclusion
The study, I believe, gave some answers to questions
about students writing on word processors. Yet perhaps as
important, it helped further clarify additional questions
we need to ask as we join computer use with our

instructional programs.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

WRITING SAMPLE TOPICS

Writing #1 Future Autobiography

(Handwritten Revision)

Many of you have had to write autobiographies or
accounts of your life already in school. In this paper you
will be writing a special kind of autobiography you
probably haven't done before, a future autobiography. You
will try to anticipate what might happen to you in the
years after you leave high school.

Of course, you can't really know exactly what will
happen to you in the years to come, however, you probably
have thought about things you might like to have happen or
things that probably will happen: leaving home; seeking
further education through college, vocational school, or
apprenticeship; starting a career or going into business
for yourself: marrying and perhaps starting a family;
possibly moving away from this area. In addition you might
think about hobbies or new interests you might develop or
traveling you might do. The point is not whether you can
actually forecast things exactly as they will happen but
that you make a sincere attempt to picture some of the life

events that might happen to you. This also means that

132

133
assuming you'll win the lottery and live on Easy Street
forever or that you'll have an early tragic death will be
considered cop-outs. You are to sincerely try to create a
picture of what your life might be like in the next dozen
or so years.

To help you set some limits as you think and write,
the future autobiography should cover the years from your
high school graduation until age twenty-eight, about the
time of your ten-year reunion. Try to imagine what you
might have to say about yourself and your life by that

time.

134
Writing #2 Proverb Story
(Handwritten Revision)

Below you will find a list of common proverbs. Read
through the list to find one that is familiar to you, and
that you understand. First you will write a paragraph
explaining what the proverb means to you. Then you will
write a story illustrating the proverb. (1 1/2 page minimum
plus the explanatory paragraph. In other words, both sides
of at least one sheet will be filled.) These papers will be
written in class only.

A. You can't judge a book by its cover.

B. A stitch in time saves nine.

C. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

D. A rolling stone gathers no moss.

D. All that glitters is not gold.

F. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.

G. Marry in haste, repent in leisure.

H. A fool and his money are soon parted.

I. Haste makes waste.

J. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

K. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

L. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

M. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

N. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make
him drink.

0. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

(0500

but you

135
Birds of a feather flock together.
Look before you leap.
He who hesitates is lost.
You can fool some of the people some of the

can't fool all of the people all of the time.

time

136
Writing #3 Theme Story
(Computer Revision)

As you work in class today you will write one of the
following types of stories.

1. Write a fantasy-type story or use an unusual or
extra-terrestrial setting like Bradbury did in ”All Summer
in a Day" to illustrate something about human behavior.
Examples: people's cruelty to each other, cruelty to
youngsters or old people by others, willingness to share,
etc.

2. Write a story to illustrate a theme or message.
Suggestions: love is blind; greed; the power of love;
unrequited love and its effects on people: success and what
it means.

3. Write a story illustrating a common expression.
Suggestions: beauty is skin deep; honesty is the best
policy.

Use your theme or saying as the title of your paper.
Minimum length: two sides of paper.

Stories will be collected at the end of class. Time
for further work and rewriting will begin tomorrow in

class.

137
Writing #4 Personal narrative
(Computer Revision)

We've just shared reading an account of a childhood
experience from Robert Newton Peck's Sggp gag Me, Now think
back over your own childhood to experiences or situations
which stick out in your memory. Perhaps you had an accident
or mishap you remember. Perhaps you remember sometime
really good that happened to you or something you achieved.
Perhaps some fun times with friends are what you recall.
Choose one of these incidents and write a narrative of this

childhood experience you remember.

138
Writing #5 Unfair Treatment Account
(Computer Revision)

One of the themes in The Master ‘pf Ballantrae (which
we just read in script form in ygigg magazine) deals with
unfair treatment. James receives the full love of his
father though he doesn't deserve it - he's manipulating and
deceitful. Henry, by contrast, receives scorn from his
father and humiliation from his brother. Yet he's gentle
and honorable. Does it seem fair that a good person should
be abused and that a scoundrel should be favored?

Of course not. Yet we've all experienced this type of
injustice, or seen someone else experience it.

. Recall a time when you witnessed someone being treated
unfairly. Perhaps someone was refused a seat at a
particular table in the cafeteria. Or someone was chosen

last for a sports team or a class project. Or someone was
turned down after inviting a classmate to a dance or other
school function.

Choose one such experience you've witnessed and tell

what occurred.

139
Writing #6 Making an Adjustment
(Computer Revision)
One of the things we all face from time to time in
life is making adjustments, just as we saw Gertie trying to
adjust to life in Detroit as we read the script to The

Dollmaker. Not all the adjustments we face are as large as

 

the ones Gertie had to make.

Think for a few minutes about the adjustments you've
had to make at various times in your life - moving to a new
place to live, starting at a new school, going to camp for
the first time, adjusting to changes in your family such as
the gain or loss of a family member.

After you have thought about some of the changes you
have had to make, choose one to write about. Tell what
adjustment you had to make, how you felt about it, and what

you did about it.

140
Writing #7 A Hard Lesson to Learn
(Handwritten Revision)

Sometimes life gives us some hard lessons. Someone we
thought was a friend turns out to not be loyal or
trustworthy. We learn hard lessons in honesty and dealing
with others. We get lessons in being dependable and
responsible. We learn from these experiences, even if they
are not very pleasant at the time.

Reflect on some of the lessons you've learned so far

in life. Choose one of them to write about in class today.

1.0 Surface

1.1

1.8
1.9
1.10

APPENDIX B

BRIDWELL REVISION INSTRUMENT

level

Spelling

Punctuation

Capitalization

Verb form

Abbreviations vs. full form
Symbols vs. full form
Contraction vs. full form
Singular vs. plural
Morpholgical conditioning

Interlinear and marginal notations related to

any of the above.

2.0 Lexical
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

single words

level

Addition

Deletion

Substitution

Order shift of single words

Interlinear and marginal notations related to

141

142

3.0 Phrase level

phrase

Addition

Deletion
Substitution/alteration

Order shift of complete phrase
Expansion of word to phrase
Reduction of phrase to word

Interlinear and marginal notations related to

4.0 Clause level (subordinate or independent not punctuated

as sentence)
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

clause

5.0 Sentence
5.1
5.2
5.3

Addition

Deletion

Substitution/alteration

Order shift of complete clause
Expansion of word or phrase to clause
Reduction of clause to word or phrase

Interlinear and marginal notations related to

level (as punctuated by student)
Addition
Deletion

Substitution/alteration

5.4

5.5

143
Order shift of complete sentence

Expansion of word, phrase, or clause to

sentence (including co-ordination)

5.6

Reduction of sentence to word, phrase, or

clause (including co-ordination)

5.7 Transformation

5.8

the above

Interlinear and marginal notations to any of

6.0 Multi-sentence level (two or more consecutive

sentences ,

categories 6.1 - 6.5 tallied once for each

sentence involved)

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5

Addition

Deletion

Substitution

Order shift of two or more sentences

Reduction of two or more sentences to single

sentence (excepting those changes accounted for by category

5.6 clause, word or phrase)

6.6

Indention

6.7 De-indention

6.8

Interlinear and margin notes

144

7.0 Text analysis (not included in analysis)

7.1

Change in function category of essay
Change in audience category of essay
Change in over-all content of essay

Total rewrite of essay with few or no

one-to-one correspondences between sentences

APPENDIX C
HOLISTIC SCORING GUIDE
SCORE OF 4
Writer does all or most of the following:

1. Takes a clear position on the issue and supports it
with one or more good reasons. Shows evidence of
develOpment and elaboration of the major point. Uses
relevant and clarifying details. (May show both sides of
the issue if both are well developed.)

2. Displays organization and coherence. Has a clear
beginning, supporting details, transitions, and conclusion.

3. Shows superior command of language structure and
vocabulary.

4. Shows superior grasp of spelling and mechanics.
Few, if any, errors.

SCORE OF 3

l. Takes a position and provides adequate support.
Some elaboration and detail provided.

2. Groups ideas into some clear plan of organization.

3. Shows adequate command of language structure and
vocabulary. May use cliches or many simple sentence
structures.

4. Adequate grasp of spelling and mechanics.

MiSSpellings are primarily unfamiliar words.

145

146
SCORE OF 2

l. Implies or takes a position but does not elaborate
or support it adequately. Lacks development. Reasoning may
be simplistic.

2. Displays minimal organization. May ramble or be
repetitious.

3. Shows some command of language structure and
vocabulary, but sentences are sometimes unclear and meaning
sometimes not immediately apparent.

4. Many misspellings of familiar and unfamiliar words.
SCORE OF 1

1. Makes an attempt to achieve the aim of the exercise
but either does not take a position or takes a position and
fails to support it.

2. Lacks focus and organization. No beginning, middle,
end to essay. Fails to relate sentences.

3. Lacks command of language structure and vocabulary.
Sentences may be unclear.

4. Lacks sufficient grasp of spelling mechanics for
adequate communication.

(Mayo, 1981, p. 15).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Robert B. Composition and editing of text.
Ergonomics, 1981, 25(8), 611-622.

Alloway, Evans. Holistic scoring session for the
New Jersey writing project: a summary.
Trenton, New Jersey: State Department
of Education, 1979. ED 191 069

Anderson, Beverly L. Writing assessments for the
'80's. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Association of School
Administrators, Chicago, 1980. ED 192 359.

Arms, Valarie M. The computer kids and composition. Paper
presented at the meeting of the College
Composition and Communication Conference,

San Francisco, 1982. ED 217 489.

Automated dictionaries reading and writing. Chairman's
report on the conference on educational uses of
word processors with dictionaries. New York,
June 15, 1979. ED 189 624.

Bannister, Linda Ann. Writing apprehension and
anti-writing: a naturalistic study of composing
strategies used by college freshmen (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California,
1982). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1982, 4}, 1436A.

Barth, Rodney J. An annotated bibliography of readings
for the computer and the English teacher. English
Journal, 1979, 68(1), 88-92.

Beach, Richard. Self-evaluation strategies of extensive
revisers and non-revisers. College Comoositiop
and Communication. 1976, 2], 160-164.

Beach, Richard and Eaton, Sara. Factors influencing
self-assessing and revising by college freshmen.
In R. Beach and L. S. Bridwell (Eds.), New
Dirggtions Lg Composition Research. New York:
Guilford Press, 1984.

Bean, John C. Computerized word processing as an aid to

revision. College Composition and Communication.
1983, 34, 146-148.

147

148
Becker, Henry Jay. Microcomguters in the classroom - dreams
and realities. Ba timore: Center for Social
Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins
University, 1982. (Report No. 319 Grant
No. NIE-G-80-0113)

 

Bell, Arthur H. Trouble with Software: an English teacher's
lament. Curriculum Review, December 1982, 31,
497-499.

Bell, Kathleen. The computer and the English classroom.
English Journal. 1980, 62(10), 88-90.

Bereiter, Carl. Development in writing. In L.W. Greg and
E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Procesggg in
Writing. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence ErlEEum
Associates Inc., 1980.

Birnbaum, June Cannell. A Study of Reading and Writing
Behaviors of Selected Fourth Grade and
Seventh Grade Students (Doctoral dissertation,
Rutgers University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1981, 42, 152A-153A.

Bloom, Lynn 2. The composing processes of anxious and
non-anxious writers; a naturalistic study. Paper
presented at the College Composition and
Commmunication Conference, Washington, D. C.,
1980. ED 185 559.

Book, Virginia. Some effects of writing apprehension on
writing performance. Paper at American Business
Communication Association, San Diego, December
1976. ED 132 595

Borque, J. Understanding and evaluating: the humanist as
computer specialist. College Englis , 1983, 55,
67-73

Braddock, Richard & Lloyd-Jones, Richard & Schoer, Lowell.
Research in_written composition. Champaign:
National Council of Teachers of English, 1963.

Bradley, V. N. Improving students' writing with micro-
computers. Language Arts, 1982, 52, 732-743.

Bridwell, Lillian S. Revising strategies in twelfth
grade students' transactional writing. Research
in the Teaching g£_English, 1980, 14, 197-222.

 

149

Bridwell, Lillian S., Nancarrow, Paula Reed 8 Ross, Donald.
The writing process and the writing machine:
current research on word processor relevant to
the teaching of conposition. In R. Beach &
L. C. Bridwell (Eds.) Egg Directions in
Composition Research. New York: The Gailford
Press, 1984.

 

Bridwell, Lillian, Sirc, Geoffrey & Brooke, Robert.
Revising and computing: case studies of student
writers. Norwood: New Jersey; Ablex, IE press.

 

Burns, H. Stimulating rhetorical invention in English
composition through computer-assisted
instruction. Austin: University of Texas, 1979.
ED 188 245.

Burns, H. A writers' tool: computing as a mode of
inventing. Paper at New York College English
Association Conference, Saratoga Springs,
New York, 1980. ED 193 693.

Chaudron, Craig. Evaluating writing: effects of feedback
on revision. Paper presented at Annual TESOL
Conference, Toronto, 1983. ED 227 706.

Clement, Frank J. Affective considerations in computer-

based education..Edugatignel Technglgsx, 1981.
2} (4), 28-32.

Collier, Richard M. The influence of computer-based
text editors on the revision strategies of
inexperienced writers. Paper at Pacific Northwest
Conference on English in the Two-Year College,
Calgary, 1981. ED 211 998.

Collier, R. The word processor and revision strategies.
College Composition and Communication, 1983, 34,
149-155.

Cooper, Charles R. & Odell, Lee. Evaluating writing:
describing, measuring, judging. Urbana: National
Council of Teachers of English, 1977.

Cope, Jo Ann. Writing apprehension. Paper at Western
College Reading Association, Long Beach, 1978.
ED 154 425.

Cronnel, Bruce & Humes, Ann. Using microcomputers for
composition instruction. Paper at College
Composition and Communication Conference,
Dallas, 1981. ED 102 872.

150
Curtice, Carolyn Ann. What can a computer do for me
that I am not already doing? English Journal,
1984, Z; (1), 32.

 

Daiute, Colette A. The computer as stylus and audience.
College Composition and Communication, 1983,

Daly, J. A. The effects of writing apprehension on
message encoding. Journalism Quarterly, 1977,
_§4, 566-572.

Daly, John A. Writing apprehension and writing competency.
Journal g£_Educational Research, 1978,-lg, 10-14.

Daly, J. A. & Miller, M.C. Apprehension of writing as a
predictor of message intensity. Journal 9:
Psycholqu, 1975, 89, 175-177.

Donahue, Barry John. Indicators of quality in natural
language composition (Doctoral dissertation,
Montana State University, 1982). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1982, 43, 2262A.

Emig, Janet. The composing precesses g; twelfth grader .
Champaign: National Council of Teachers of
English, 1971 (Research Report No. 13).

Faigley, Lester, Daly, John A. 8 Witte, Stephen P. The
role of writing apprehension in writing
performance and competence. Journal g£_
Educational Research, 1981, 15, 16-21.

Fisher, Glenn. Word processing - will it make kids love to
write? Instructor, 1983, 92, 87-88.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. Problem-solving strategies and
the writing process. College English, 1977, 34,
449-461.

Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J.R. A cognitive process theory of
writing. College Composition and Communication,
1981, 32, 365-387.

Gebhardt, Richard C. Writing processes, revision and
rhetorical problems; a note on three recent
articles. College Composition and Communication,
21.. 1983, 294-296.

Gentry, Larry A. What research says about revision. CATESOL
Occasional Papers (Number 8). California
Association of Teachers of English to Speakers
of Other Languages, Fall 1982.

 

151
Giovannini, Mary Elizabeth. Teaching business
communications by the traditional writing and
the word-processing methods - a comparison
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri -
Columbia, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts
International, l981,_42, 513A-514A.

 

Golub, Lester S. Computer-assisted instruction in English
teacher education. English Education, 1973, 4(2),
92-101.

 

Gould, John D. Composing letters with computer-based text
editors. Human Factors, 1981, gg, 592-606.

Gould, John D. Writing and speaking letters and messages.
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies.

1982, 1_§<2), 1—T‘I’TI—4 - . “

Green, John 0. Computers, kids and writing: an interview
with Donald Graves. Classroom Computer Learning,

 

Halpern, Jeanne W. Effects of dictation/word processing
systems on teaching writing. Paper at College
Composition and Communication Conference,

San Francisco, 1982. ED 215 357.

Hansen, Barbara. Rewriting is a waste of time. College
English, 1978, 32, 956-960.

Hayes, John R. & Flower, Linda S. Identifying the
organization of writing processes. In L.W.
Greg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.) Cognitive Processes
‘in_Writing, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence
Erlbaum, Associates Inc., 1980.

Hennings, D. Using computer technology to teach English
composition. The Education Digest, 1981, 46(8),
41-43 0

Hocking, Joan. The impact of microcomputers on composition
students. Paper at College Composition and
Communication Conference, Detroit, 1983.

Hodges, Karen. A history of revision: theory versus
practice. In Ronald A. Sudol (Ed.) Revising.
New Essays for Teachers 9; Writing. Urbana:
National Council of Teachers of English, 1982,
24-42.

Hoetker, James. Effects of essay topics on student writing:
a review of the literature. 1982. ED 217 486.

152
Holmes, G. Computer-assisted instruction: a discussion
of some of the issues for would-be implementors.
Educational Technology, 1982, 22, 7-13.

Humes, A. Research on the composing process. Review pf
Educational Research, Summer 1983, :3, 201-216.

 

Jaycox, Kathleen M. Computer applications in the teaching
of English. The Illinois Series gg_Educational
Application of Computers, No. 19e. Urbana:
University of-Illinois, 1979. ED 183 196.

 

Johnson, Parker. Writers' perceptions and what the record
shows. Unpublished paper, University of
Minnesota, 1982.

Keeney, Mary Louise. An investigation of what
intermediate-grade children say about the
writing of stories (Doctoral dissertation,
Lehigh University, 1975). Dissertation Abstragts
International, 1975, 26, 5802A.

 

Kleinian, Gary & Humphrey, Mary. Word processing in the
classroom. Compute, 1982, 22, 96-99.

Kreiter-Kurylo, Carolyn. Computers and composition.
The Writing Instructor. Summer 1983, 2, 174-182.

Kroll, B. M. Cognitive-egocentrism and the problem of
audience awareness in written discourse.
Research in the Teaching pf English, 1978, 22,
269-281.

Kulik, J. A. Synthesis of research on computer-based
instruction. Educational Leadership, 1983, 11
(1), 19-21.

Lawler, R. W. One child's learning; introducing writing
with a computer. Memo No. 575. Cambridge:
Massachusetts Institutue of TechnologY: 1980.
ED 208 415.

Lawlor, Joseph (Ed.). Computers in_composition instruction.
The procedings pf §_research/practice conference.
Los Alametos, California: S.W.R.L. Educational
Research & Development, 1982. ED 226 709.

 

Lees, Elaine 0. Critical monism, critical pluralism and the
ideal of inter-rater reliability. Paper at
College Composition and Communication Conference,
Dallas, 1981. ED 227 495.

153
Leibowicz, J. ERIC/RC8 report: CAI in English. English
Education, 1982, 14 (4), 241-147.

 

Littlefield, P. Teaching writing with a word processor.
Academic Therapy, 1983, 12, 25-29.

 

Lordon, John F. Struggling with the writing process.
The Clearinghouse, 1983, 52(4), 171-172.

 

 

MacDonald, N. H., et. a1. Writer's Workbench; computer
aids for text analysis. Educational Psychologist,
1982, 2] (4), 172-179.

Marcus, Stephen. Real-time gadgets with feedback: special
effects in computer-assisted instruction.
The Writing Instructor, Summer 1983, 2, 156-164.

Marcus and Blau. Not seeing is believing: invisible writing
with computers. Educational Technolong 1983, 22
(4), 12-16.

 

Marling, William. What do you do with your computer when
you get it? Focus: Teaching English Language
Arts, Spring 1983, 2 (3), 48-53.

Mayo, Nolie Brown. Tenth grade students' perceptions of the
writing process. Paper at annual meeting of
Southwest Educational Research Association,
Dallas, 1981, ED 202 036.

Milner, Stuart & Wildberger, A. M. How should computers be
used in learning?. Journal p§.Computer-based
Instruction. 1974, 2(1), 7-12.

 

Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium. Word
processing; an explanation and overview.
St. Paul: Minnesota Educational Computing
Consortium, 1982.

Mischel, T. A case study of a twelfth-grade writer.
Research 23 the Teaching 92 Englis , 1974,
_8_' 303-314 0

Moran, Charles. Word processing and the teaching of
writing. English Journal, 1983, 12(3),
113-115.

Murray, Donald M. Teach the motivating force of revision.
English Journal, 1978, 61(7), 56-60.

154
Murray, Donald M. Writing as process: how writing finds
its own meaning. In Timothy R. Donovan & Ben W.
McClelland (Eds.), Eight Approaches Eg
Teaching Composition, Urbana: National Council
of Teachers of English, 1980.

Myers, Miles. Aprocedure for writing assessment and
holistic scoring: Urbana: National Counc11
of Teachers of English, 1980.

 

Nicholl, James R. Computers in English instruction:
the dream and the reality. North Carolina
English Teacher, Winter 1982, 39 (2), 1-6.

Nold, E. Fear and trembling: the humanist approaches

the computer. Qollege Composition and
Communication, 1975, 2g, 269-273.

Nold, Ellen W. Revising: toward a theory. Paper at
College Composition and Communication
Conference, Minneapolis, 1979. ED 172 212.

Nold, Ellen W. Revising: intentions and conventions.
In Ronald A. Sudol (Ed.), Revising. New
ESSBXSHIQI Teaphers p§_Writing. Urbana:
National Council of Teachers of English,
1982.

Papert, Seymour. Mindstorms. ChildrenI Computers and
Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1980.

Pavlisin, Peggy Irene. Teaching students to revise and
proofread; an experiment with technical writing
students (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State
University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1982, 33, 1354A.

Perfahl, John. Response to Richard M Collier, "The word
processor and revision strategies”. College
Composition and Communication, 1984, 3§, 91.

Pianko, Sharon, Reflection: a critical component of the
composing process. College Composition“ and
Communication, 1979, 30, 275-278.

Rodrigues, Raymond J. The computer-based writing program
from load to print. English Journal, 1984,
123(1), 27-30.

Rodrigues, Raymond J. and Rodrigues, Dawn Wilson. Computer-
based invention: its place and potential. College
Composition and Communication, 1984, 33, 78-87.

Roscoe, John T. Fundamental Research Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1969.

 

Rosen, Arnold & Freedan, Rosemary. Word Processing.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1982.

Sanders, Sara E. & Littlefield, John H. Perhaps test
essays can reflect significant improvement in
freshman composition: report on a significant
attempt. Research 2n_the Teaching_e§ English,
1975, 2, 145-153.

Schrader, Vincent E. Teaching journalism on the micro.
English Journal, 1984, 13(4), 93-94.

Schwartz, Helen. Monsters and mentors: computer
for humanistic education. College English,
1982, 32, 141-152.

Schwartz, Helen J. Teaching writing with computer aids.
College English, 1984, gg, 239-247.

Schwartz Mimi. Computers and the teaching of writing.
Educational Technology, 1982, 22 (11), 27-29.

Schwartz, Mimi. Revision profiles: patterns and
College En lish, 1983, 45, 549-558.

Schwartz, Mimi. Two journeys through the writing process.

.Qollege_Composition and Communication, 1983,
1983, 31, 188-201.

Self, Warren. Computers in teaching English. Focus;
teaching English language arts, Spring 1983,
_9_(9), 17-21.

Selfe, Cynthia L. and Wahlstron, Billie J. The benevolent
beast: computer-assisted instruction for teaching
writing. The Writing Instructor, Summer 1983, 2,
183-192.

Shane, Harold G. The silicon age and education. Phi Delta
Kappan, 1982, §3(5), 303-308.

Shaughnessey, Mina P. Errors and expectations. A guide

for the teacher_e£ basic writing. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1977.

155

156
Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
ppienpes. New York: McGraw - Hill Book Co., 1956.

Sommers, Nancy. The need for theory in composition
research. College Composition and Communication,
1979' .LOI 46-49.

Sommers, Nancy. Revision strategies of student writers and
experienced adult writers. College Composition
and Communication, 1980, 32, 378-388.

Spandel, Vicki. Classroom applications_g§ writing
assessment..e_teacher's handbook. Portland,
Oregon: Clearinghouse for Applied Performance
Testing, Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory, 1981.

Stallard, Charles K. An analysis of writer behavior of
good student writers. Research ip_the Teaching
.p§_English, 1974, 2, 206-218.

Suhor, C. Cars, computers and curriculum. Educational
Leadership, Summer 1983, 23, 30-32.

Voss, Ralph F. Janet Emig's The composition processes
of twelfth graders: a reassessment.
Composition and Communication, 1983, 35, 278-283.

Wilson, Kara Gae. English teachers: key to computer
literacy. English Journal, 1981, 19(5), 50-53.

Withey, Margaret M. The computer and writing. English
Journal, 1983, 12(7), 24-31.

Witte, Stephen P. Topical structure and revision: an
exploratory study. College Composition and
Communication, 1983, 33(3), 313-341.

Womble, Gail G. Process and processor: is there room
for a machine in the English classroom?
English Journal, 1983, 23(1), 34-37.

Wresch, W. Computers in English class: finally beyond
grammar and spelling drills. College English,
1982, 52, 483-490.

157
Wresch, William. Prewriting, writing and editing by
computer. Paper at College Composition and
Communication Conference, San Francisco, 1982.
ED 213 045.

Wresch, William. Computers and composition instruction:

an update. College Epolieh, 1983, 4518), 794-799.

157

      

HIGH 9

G N STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
"WW“WIN"IHW‘IUIWWWW
1293106161494

 
 
  

  

I

3