Do computers have an effect on the quality of students’ writing?
Amie Goldberg, Michael Russell, and Abigail Cook analysed several studies from 1992-2002 on the Effect of Computers on Student Writing and asked: Do computers have a positive effect on students’ writing process and quality of writing they produce? This question links back to my previous post on how word processing affects our thought processes. One of their central conclusions was that students who write with word processors tend to produce higher quality passages than students who write with paper-and-pencil – examples of characteristics of ‘high quality’ being setting, characterisation, grammar and coherence. Their analysis of whether this is due to a greater number of revisions being made was inconclusive, but they did pick up on a number of studies that highlight the changes in social interactions that take place when students write with computers, which include:
- more peer-editing and peer-mediate work takes place (Baker & Kinzer, 1998; Butler & Cox, 1992; Snyder, 1994)
- student-to-student interactions increase (Snyder, 1994)
- teacher’s role shifts from activity leader to that of facilitator and “proof-reader” (Snyder, 1994)
It was suggested (by Snyder 1994, cited in Goldberg et al) that this change was due to the students increased motivation, engagement and independence.
A study by Baker & Kinzer (1998) focused on the actual writing process itself, and found, when word processing as opposed to writing on paper, the process of critical examination and revision begins earlier in the writing process, even as new ideas are being recorded. I have definitely noticed this pattern of working in my own blogging activity.
It’s not all good news though – Shaw, Nauman, and Burson (1994) concluded in their study that writing produced on computer was “stilted” and less creative than what students produced on paper. Without knowing more about the context in which the children were working, it’s difficult to pin down an explanation for the apparent hampering of creativity observed here. However, it should be borne in mind that the students in this study were only 8 years old, so the parallels with computer-literate, self-directed adult learners/bloggers may be few.
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A metaanalysis
of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1).
(Full text available from http://www.jtla.org)
How does word processing affect our thought processes?
Mortensen and Walker (2002) ask the question: “[does] the way we write in a blog reveal something about how we think that would not be explicit in another medium?” They conclude that “blogging certainly influences the way you think about thinking“, and that using a different blogging tool may have unexpected effects on the way a blogger expresses their thoughts. A simple factor such as the size of the writing space may affect the length of posts, and some blogging tools allow you to add a blog icon to your web browser, enabling you to fire off an immediate response to something on the web. But the isolated act of typing thoughts into a blog is simply a form of word processing. What effect, if any, does the act of word processing itself have on our thinking?
Related to the act of word processing is the effect of words themselves on thought (and vice versa) – a fascinating topic that I’d like to delve into later, starting off by drawing on the writings of Benjamin Whorf and Lev Vygotsky and moving onwards and outwards from there.
Michael Heim’s Electric Language: A Philosophical Study of Word Processing (Yale University Press, 1986) sounds like it could be interesting (note to self – try to get hold of a copy). The act of typing something into a blog that is intended for publication certainly does affect our thinking. As Toril and Mortensen (2002) point out, because it’s intended to be read by others, writing in a blog forces greater clarity in the formulation of ideas than writing private notes, and “…it is easy to neglect old notes scribbled in the margin of a book…writing in a weblog one is forced to confront one’s own writing and opinions and to see them reflected in the words of others.” (p269). Can I conclude from this that, in terms of affecting the thought processes of the author, the audience (or the potential for an audience) is more important than the medium?
computers and writing, thought and language | Comment (0)
