isl week 12

EDU 3053 ISL WEEK 12

The Impact of Word Processing in Education

1

Why Teachers use Word Processing

- no other technology resource has had as great an impact on education as word processing.

- word processing offer high versatility and flexibility, it also is "model-free" instructional software; that is, it reflects no particular instructional approach.

- A teacher can use it to support any kind of directed instruction or constructivist activity.

- value as an aid to teaching and learning is universally acknowledged, word.

- most commonly used software in education.

Advantages to teachers and students

Saves time — Word processing helps teachers use preparation time more efficiently by letting them modify materials instead of creating new ones. Writers can also make corrections to word processing documents more quickly than they could on a typewriter or by hand.

Enhances document appearance — Materials created with word processing software look more polished and professional than handwritten or typed materials do. It is not surprising that students seem to like the improved appearance that word processing gives to their work (Harris, 1985). This is especially possible with the many templates that are part of the software suites today.

Allows sharing of documents — Word processing allows materials to be shared easily among writers. Teachers can exchange lesson plans, worksheets, or other materials on disk and modify them to fit their needs. Students can also share ideas and products among themselves.

Allows collaboration of documents — Especially since the release of Google Docs, teachers and students can now create, edit, and share documents synchronously.


2

The Effects of Word Processing on the Quality of Writing

Strong opinions about the effects of word processing are easy to find. For example, Herrmann (1987) reported that learning to handle the keyboard interferes with the writing process. Yet Branan (1984), Willer (1984) and Ho Chung Qui (1986) cite increased amounts of creative writing by learning disabled children when they were taught word processing.

Studies of composition length.

While composition length is not meant to be a measure of the quality of writing, investigators have examined this variable in the expectation that students who write more will eventually learn to write better. Kurth (1987) found no significant difference between control and treatment groups in length of compositions produced. Her subjects were high school students who were participating in an experimental writing course as a voluntary extra-curricular activity. Some of these highly-motivated subjects took their writing home to work on. It seems likely that these subjects would continue to rethink and revise their work until they were satisfied– regardless of the amount of extra time it would take to write by hand. With writing time controlled, however, Etchison (1985) found that students using word processors made greater increases in length of composition from pre to post instruction. His students had two days to plan their compositions, one hour to write, and then two days later were given a one hour revising session. Willinsky (1990) has found that education students whose normal course assignments were prepared on word processors wrote approximately 20% longer papers than those using typewriters or pen and paper.

Studies of holistic quality.

Hawisher (1986) and Cross and Curey (1984) found that overall quality ratings for essays produced with word processing were similar to those for essays produced with pen or typewriter. Willinsky (1990), using grades obtained on assignments for a variety of education courses, found no significant difference in marks earned by students who word processed their assignments, those who typed them, or those who wrote in long hand. Etchison (1985), on the other hand, found gains in holistic quality of essays written with a word processor were five times greater than were those written with pen and paper. It is important to note that Etchison took pains to control many other factors that might affect the quality of the final product (e.g., time allotted to the writing task, writing environment, etc.) It is quite likely that with his timed writing sessions, Etchison has provided an empirical indication of the relative speed with which students can compose and revise on a word processor after a semester of use.


The Effects of Word Processing on the Quality of Writing

Strong opinions about the effects of word processing are easy to find. For example, Herrmann (1987) reported that learning to handle the keyboard interferes with the writing process. Yet Branan (1984), Willer (1984) and Ho Chung Qui (1986) cite increased amounts of creative writing by learning disabled children when they were taught word processing.

Studies of composition length.

While composition length is not meant to be a measure of the quality of writing, investigators have examined this variable in the expectation that students who write more will eventually learn to write better. Kurth (1987) found no significant difference between control and treatment groups in length of compositions produced. Her subjects were high school students who were participating in an experimental writing course as a voluntary extra-curricular activity. Some of these highly-motivated subjects took their writing home to work on. It seems likely that these subjects would continue to rethink and revise their work until they were satisfied– regardless of the amount of extra time it would take to write by hand. With writing time controlled, however, Etchison (1985) found that students using word processors made greater increases in length of composition from pre to post instruction. His students had two days to plan their compositions, one hour to write, and then two days later were given a one hour revising session. Willinsky (1990) has found that education students whose normal course assignments were prepared on word processors wrote approximately 20% longer papers than those using typewriters or pen and paper.

Studies of holistic quality.

Hawisher (1986) and Cross and Curey (1984) found that overall quality ratings for essays produced with word processing were similar to those for essays produced with pen or typewriter. Willinsky (1990), using grades obtained on assignments for a variety of education courses, found no significant difference in marks earned by students who word processed their assignments, those who typed them, or those who wrote in long hand. Etchison (1985), on the other hand, found gains in holistic quality of essays written with a word processor were five times greater than were those written with pen and paper. It is important to note that Etchison took pains to control many other factors that might affect the quality of the final product (e.g., time allotted to the writing task, writing environment, etc.) It is quite likely that with his timed writing sessions, Etchison has provided an empirical indication of the relative speed with which students can compose and revise on a word processor after a semester of use.

Analytic studies.

Etchison (1985) also measured changes in syntactic variables such as free modification, number of clauses, average number of words per clause, and type of

3


embedding, but found no significant differences in these areas between students who used word processing and those who did not.

The Effects of Word Processing on Revision

Several studies have examined differences in the ways writers approach revision when using a word processor as compared to other writing tools. Some have focused on the number of revisions made (e.g., Hawisher, 1986;

Cross and Curey, 1984), while others have focused on the kinds of revisions made (Willinsky, 1990; Kurth, 1987; Hawisher, 1986). Macarthur (1988) and Hult (1986) compared word processing revisions between experienced and inexperienced writers.

In a critical review of the literature, Hooper (1987) concluded that word processors ease the revision process (Nash, 1985), that most revisions are purely cosmetic (Womble, 1984) and that fewer substantial revisions are made by students using word processors (Harris, 1985). Students in Willinsky’s (1989) study also indicated that their most frequent revising activities were minor changes–spelling and grammar corrections or the addition, deletion, replacement, or reordering of words. In this study, students using word processors reported more revisions in all these categories than did students using typewriters or pens. They also reported more additions of sentences and of paragraphs–more significant changes than those found in most earlier studies.

Hawisher (1986) examined the effects of word processing on the revision strategies of college students and observed that amount of revision was not positively correlated with quality ratings and that students make the same kinds of revisions (i.e., "surface" vs. "meaning" changes) regardless of the writing tool used. These observations were based on beween-draft revisions and may not apply to revisions made in the process of composing. In a later study, Hawisher (1987) found no qualitative difference in the revisions made by those who used a computer compared to those who wrote with pen. She suggested that the initial draft, "the point of utterance" has a greater effect on the ultimate quality of the product than do the revisions students make. However, it may well be that this is simply a reflection of the minimal amount and quality of revision which other researchers (see above) have found to be the norm.

Hult (1986) found that inexperienced writers focus their revision efforts at the level of word changes, resulting in surface revisions. Experienced writers tended to see composition as a complete activity; therefore, they make more changes to style and content. Macarthur (1988) found that experienced writers make more revisions than inexperienced writers when both groups are using word processors. He also cautioned that easing the physical requirements of revision will not result in better compositions unless students know how to evaluate and correct their writing.

4


In a study of professional writers, Lutz (1987) observed that they made different kinds of revision when they used word processors than they made using pen and paper. The computer’s small window on a document seemed to encourages local editing but may have limited the writer’s perspective on the document as a whole, thereby discouraging deep revision of the text. Revision was more effective when done with pencil and paper or when done on hard copy.

Of course, it is unreasonable for us to expect that changing writing tools alone will change the kinds of revisions writers make. As Hult (1986) has argued, the development of effective revision strategies will require that we teach the value of such functions as moving and deleting blocks of text. It should also be clear that students will need instruction and support in knowing what to revise–they will need to learn how to evaluate and improve their own writing in order to know what use to make of the word processor.

5


Issues in Word Processing

Word Processing

Word processing software is used to manipulate a text document, such as a resume or a report. You typically enter text by typing and the software provides tools for copying, deleting and various types of formatting. Some of the functions of word processing software include:

Creating, editing, saving and printing documents. Copying, pasting, moving and deleting text within a document. Formatting text, such as font type, bolding, underlining or italicizing. Creating and editing tables. Inserting elements from other software, such as illustrations or photographs. Correcting spelling and grammar.

Word processing includes a number of tools to format your pages. For example, you can organize your text into columns, add page numbers, insert illustrations, etc. However, word processing does not give you complete control over the look and feel of your document. When design becomes important, you may need to use desktop publishing software to give you more control over the layout of your pages.

Word processing software typically also contains features to make it easier for you to perform repetitive tasks. For example, let's say you need to send a letter to all your customers regarding a new policy. The letter is the same for all customers except for the name and address at the top of the letter. A mail merge function allows you to produce all the letters using one template document and a table with customer names and addresses in the database.

Text editors shouldn't be confused with word processing software. While they do also allow you to create, edit and save text documents, they only work on plain text. Text editors don't use any formatting, such as underlined text or different fonts. Text editors serve a very different purpose from word processing software. They are used to work with files in plain text format, such as source code of computer programs or configuration files of an operating system. An example of a text editor would be Notepad on the Windows platform.

Word Processing Software

There are a number of different word processing applications. One of the most widely used ones is Word, which is part of Microsoft Office. Another widely used one is WordPerfect by the Corel Corporation. A third one is Writer, which is part of OpenOffice by Apache. While the first two are commercial software, OpenOffice is open source and can be downloaded and used free of charge. Finally, there is Pages, which is part of iWork by Apple.

6


While there are many differences between the various word processing applications, they all accomplish pretty much the same thing. Which one you use is partly a matter of personal preference. It is also important to consider which software is being used by the people you normally collaborate with. In many cases, people within the same organization will use the same software to make it easier to share documents or to work on the same document together.

Word processing applications typically include utilities to convert between the native formats of each application. For example, if you are using iWork by Apple you can export it to a format that Microsoft Word can read if that's what your colleagues are using.

7


8

Documents

isl week 12