UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effect of word-processing experience on editing while composing Pearce, Richard William 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 P42.pdf [ 2.87MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055100.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055100-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055100-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055100-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055100-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055100-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055100-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055100-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055100.ris

Full Text

The E f f e c t of Word-processing Experience on E d i t i n g v h i l e Composing. Richard W i l l i a m Pearce B. Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,1977 Thesis submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the quirement f o r the Degree of Master of A r t s (Education) i n The F a c u l t y of Graduate Studies Department of Mathematics and Science Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia October, 1990 © Richard W i l l i a m Pearce In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of <£ $C/&0£6 &>0C/ir/H0 The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t This study i n v e s t i g a t e d the i m p l i c a t i o n s of u s i n g computers i n the w r i t i n g process. The purpose was to determine whether there was a d i f f e r e n c e between two groups i n t h e i r e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g techniques and t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards w r i t i n g . It was hypothesized that students who had had three years experience with computer w r i t i n g would use more s o p h i s t i c a t e d forms of e d i t i n g and would f e e l more p o s i t i v e toward w r i t i n g than those students who had only a s i n g l e year of w r i t i n g with the computer. Two groups of seventh-grade students were i d e n t i f i e d : the One-year Group c o n s i s t e d of students who had one year of keyboard t r a i n i n g and one year of experience with a word processor; the Three-year Group c o n s i s t e d of students who had a minimum of three years of keyboard t r a i n i n g and a minimum of three years experience with a word processor. The students had a l l attended schools w i t h i n the same d i s t r i c t f o r the past three years. A group of grade-six students were t r a i n e d as observers. They were given two t r a i n i n g sessions, f i r s t observing a videotape and then observing another student. About 150 students were t r a i n e d and the best 60 were used to observe the grade sevens f o r the study. Each w r i t i n g group spent one forty-minute p e r i o d composing an essay on the computer while being observed by the grade-six students. The observers t a l l i e d the e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g a c t i o n s that were employed by the two w r i t i n g groups. The e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s of the two groups were compared. The grade-seven students were also given a w r i t i n g o p i n i o n survey. Both groups had a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e but there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward w r i t i n g . Three l e v e l s of e d i t i n g are normally discerned (Kurth and Stromberg, 1987; H i l l o c k s , 1987): surface, l e x i c a l , and phrase/sentence. The One-year Group made s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t y p i n g c o r r e c t i o n s but there was no d i f f e r e n c e i n o v e r a l l surface e d i t i n g . The Three-year group d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l e x i c a l and phrase/sentence e d i t i n g . In t h i s way, students with more word-processing experience e x h i b i t an e d i t i n g s t y l e that i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of b e t t e r w r i t e r s . i v Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables v i L i s t of F i g u r e s v i i Chapter 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Study Summary 7 Summary of Chapters 8 2. Review of the L i t e r a t u r e 10 Research on E d i t i n g Process While u s i n g Pen and Paper 10 Research on Computer W r i t i n g 14 Keyboarding S k i l l s 15 E d i t i n g Research 17 General Studies 18 S p e c i f i c Studies 21 Students' A t t i t u d e s 24 Summary 27 3. Methodology 31 Student I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 32 Treatment 34 Keyboarding Programs 34 T r a i n i n g of Keyboarding Teachers 35 Student Keyboarding Lessons 36 Word Processors 36 V Observational Sheets 36 Observers 39 W r i t i n g Periods 43 A t t i t u d e Questionnaire 44 Method of A n a l y s i s 45 4. A n a l y s i s of Res u l t s 47 Ten Observational Categories 49 Students' A t t i t u d e Towards W r i t i n g 54 Observations During W r i t i n g Periods 55 Summary 56 5. Conclusion 57 Students' A t t i t u d e s 63 L i m i t a t i o n s 63 Conclusions 65 Recommendations 66 F u r t h e r Studies 67 Appendices 77 L i s t of References 0 b% v i L i s t of Tables 1. A Taxonomy of E d i t i n g S t y l e s 39 2. L e t t e r Grades f o r Language A r t s of the One-year Group and the Three-year Group 48 3. Sex D i s t r i b u t i o n of the One-year Group and the Three-year Group 48 4. Frequencies of E d i t i n g A c t i v i t i e s -One-year Group vs. Three-year Group 50 5. L e v e l s of E d i t i n g - One-year Group vs. Three-year Group 52 6. Student A t t i t u d e Survey - One-year Group vs. Three-year Group 55 v i i List; of Figures 1a. Comparison of Means f o r I n d i v i d u a l E d i t i n g Categories 53 1b. Comparison of Means f o r Level s of E d i t i n g 53 1 Chapter 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n For decades the young c h i l d r e n e n t e r i n g the school system were introduced to the 'proper' methods of h o l d i n g and u s i n g the p e n c i l . They were then taught the symbols that allowed them to create words and e v e n t u a l l y the syntax to develop sentences. In w r i t i n g c l a s s e s they r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n e d i t i n g and p r o o f r e a d i n g . As the c h i l d progressed through the grades these s k i l l s were developed and improved. George H i l l o c k s (1987) noted that r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g with the t r a d i t i o n a l pen and paper medium had been a concern of many s t u d i e s . Over the past ten years i n B r i t i s h Columbia, elementary school students have been introduced to w r i t i n g on the computer. Computer w r i t i n g - any piece of w r i t i n g produced with the a i d of a computer - has allowed the young c h i l d to compose, e d i t and p u b l i s h without a pen or p e n c i l . The i n t r o d u c t i o n of the computer i n the school has created a w r i t i n g medium that c a l l s f o r the. students to l e a r n unique s k i l l s such as keyboarding, word processing, computer r e l a t e d vocabulary and p r i n t e r manipulation. A command of t h i s t e c h n o l o g i c a l t o o l 2 allows the students to e d i t and r e v i s e t h e i r w r i t i n g with ease. The l i t e r a t u r e a v a i l a b l e on computer w r i t i n g i s extensive and v a r i e d ; however, research examining the ways i n which long term computer w r i t i n g a f f e c t s a student's e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n s k i l l s i s sparse. The s k i l l s needed to use a computer p r o f i c i e n t l y f o r w r i t i n g are more demanding than the pyscho-motor s k i l l s needed f o r the t r a d i t i o n a l pen and paper ( B a l a j t h y , 1988). Furthermore, the knowledge needed to t u r n a piece of paper to review a previous page i s d i s t i n c t l y u n r e l a t e d to the knowledge needed to achieve the same e f f e c t with a word processor. Once w r i t e r s have acquired s u f f i c i e n t s k i l l s to use a computer adequately f o r w r i t i n g , the b e n e f i t s appear s i g n i f i c a n t . Kleiman and Humphrey (1982) s t a t e d that i t e l i m i n a t e s the typewriter, pens, s c r a t c h paper, erasers, cut-and-paste t o o l s , and p o s s i b l y even d i c t i o n a r i e s , moreover, the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of s t o r i n g , e d i t i n g , and r e v i s i n g text leaves students f r e e f o r h i g h e r order processing, (p. 97) If students are given the keyboarding s k i l l s necessary to use the computer b e n e f i c i a l l y and adequate 3 opportunity to use word processors, what then are the d i f f e r e n c e s we may expect? Are students who have been u s i n g the computer as a word processor b e t t e r e d i t o r s ? There i s a need to look c l o s e r at the r e v i s i n g and e d i t i n g techniques experienced computer w r i t e r s u t i l i z e . The approaches that school d i s t r i c t s have taken to a s s i s t the c h i l d i n u s i n g the computer as a w r i t i n g t o o l vary. Some schools have p l a c e d students with l i t t l e or no experience i n keyboarding i n f r o n t of the computer. Others have spent a great amount of time and e f f o r t i n teaching and e s t a b l i s h i n g proper keyboarding s k i l l s . The methods of i n t r o d u c i n g and u s i n g word p r o c e s s i n g programs are also t r e a t e d i n an ad hoc manner. There has not been a curric u l u m set i n B r i t i s h Columbia to guide the elementary schools i n computer w r i t i n g ; however the M i n i s t r y has r e c e n t l y produced a resource manual f o r elementary keyboarding. The l i t e r a t u r e supports the need f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l s r e l a t e d to computer w r i t i n g . Leuhrmann <1984> recommends that keyboarding should be a p r e - r e q u i s i t e before a student enters a computer c l a s s because time at li-the computer i s wasted i f i t i s spent hunting f o r keys on the keyboard. Wetzel (1985) s t a t e s that "students who have adequate keyboarding s k i l l s use t h e i r time at the computer e f f i c i e n t l y - that i s , they can concentrate on problem s o l v i n g , r a t h e r than on the mechanics of typing".(p.15) Other s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d the need f o r word processor awareness. C o l l i e r (1983) noted that the word proc e s s o r h i s grade 5 students used was so d i f f i c u l t to master that much of t h e i r energy and time was spent l e a r n i n g to manipulate the word p r o c e s s i n g system i t s e l f . On the other hand, Morton, Lindsay and Roche (1989) concluded that "Introducing systematic word p r o c e s s i n g p r a c t i c e s to elementary school s e t t i n g s , would seem to h e r a l d p o s i t i v e effects".(p.1 5 6 ) Keyboarding lessons and word processor usage have been reported i n c l a s s e s as e a r l y as Kindergarten (Morrison 1986). There are students who have had numerous years experience with computer w r i t i n g and developed the s k i l l s necessary to use a word processor p r o f i c i e n t l y . If word processors make e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g e a s i e r what d i f f e r e n c e s can we then expect between those students with l i t t l e computer w r i t i n g experience and those who have acquired p r o f i c i e n t computer w r i t i n g s k i l l s ? 5 An i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the l i t e r a t u r e surrounding e d i t i n g with pen and paper revealed a comparative s c a l e that researchers have developed. H i l l o c k s ' ( 1 9 8 6 ) meta-a n a l y s i s of the research on w r i t i n g with pen and paper repor t e d the r e s u l t s of B r i d w e l l ' s study ( 1 9 8 0 ) and those of C a l k i n s ( 1 9 8 0 ) and the N a t i o n a l Assessment of Ed u c a t i o n a l Progress ( 1 9 7 7 ) . H i l l o c k s ( 1 9 8 6 ) s t a t e s that r e s e a r c h has discovered that a m a j o r i t y of e d i t i n g took plac e at the surface and l e x i c a l l e v e l s . The s t u d i e s r e v e a l e d that experienced w r i t e r s o f t e n c i r c l e d back i n t h e i r w r i t i n g and e d i t e d at va r i o u s l e v e l s throughout the w r i t i n g process. Researchers have a l s o noted that e d i t i n g s t y l e s appear to be developmental and that student w r i t e r s r e v i s i o n s k i l l s improve over the course of t h e i r educational experiences ( S t a l l a r d 1 9 7 4 ; L i n e r , 1 9 7 8 ; C a l k i n s 1 9 8 O ) . C o l l i e r ( 1 9 8 3 ) found that the use of a word pr o c e s s o r i n c r e a s e d the number and complexity of r e v i s i o n operations and encouraged gre a t e r manipulation of m a t e r i a l at the l e x i c a l and phrase/clause l e v e l . The study, however,did not i n d i c a t e the keyboarding experience of the students i n v o l v e d and i t i s noted that 6 the students had d i f f i c u l t y managing the word p r o c e s s i n g program. Morton, Lindsay and Roche (1989) found i n t h e i r study that the eighth-grade students made changes at the "meaning-changing r e v i s i o n stage" a l l o w i n g them to conclude that " t h i s s o p h i s t i c a t e d aspect of word p r o c e s s i n g may r e f l e c t a developmental m a t u r i t y f a c t o r " , (p.160) This study has been designed to i n v e s t i g a t e the i m p l i c a t i o n s of u s i n g computers i n the w r i t i n g process. The purpose of t h i s study was to determine whether there was a d i f f e r e n c e between two groups i n t h e i r e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g techniques and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards w r i t i n g . Considering the research i n e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g with pen and paper, what a f f e c t has the computer had on students' w r i t i n g ? Is g r e a t e r experience with w r i t i n g on the computer a f a c t o r i n the e d i t i n g techniques that students d i s p l a y ? If students have had three years' experience w r i t i n g with the computer do they have a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards w r i t i n g than those students who have had only one year's experience? It was hypothesized that students who had had three years' experience with computer w r i t i n g would use more s o p h i s t i c a t e d forms of e d i t i n g and would f e e l 7 more p o s i t i v e toward w r i t i n g than those students who had only a s i n g l e year of w r i t i n g with the computer. Study Summary The author conducted a survey i n A p r i l , 1990, which asked seventh-grade students what experience they had with w r i t i n g with the computer. A number of i n d i c a t e d they had three years' experience with computer w r i t i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a second group was i d e n t i f i e d that had only a s i n g l e year of experience with both keyboarding and word p r o c e s s i n g . Each group had already been exposed to one of two d i s t i n c t time periods of i n s t r u c t i o n , one and three years. This d i f f e r e n c e i n time served as the comparative v a r i a b l e i n the a n a l y s i s of data. Although the i n s t r u c t o r s of the two groups were d i f f e r e n t , the i n s t r u c t o r s had a l l been t r a i n e d i n u s i n g and teaching keyboarding programs and use of word processors (FrEd Writer, Appleworks and M u l t i - S c r i b e ) . The study was designed to have students write a d e s c r i p t i v e s t o r y while being observed f o r e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n techniques. The means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the 8 two groups were c a l c u l a t e d from from the o b s e r v a t i o n a l data c o l l e c t e d . The d i f f e r e n c e between the two means of the two groups was t e s t e d and the z-value was used to i n d i c a t e l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Summary of Chapters The review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n Chapter Two discusses the r e s e a r c h that has been conducted on w r i t t e n e xpression with pen and paper and the r e s u l t s of observations with a focus on e d i t i n g . The chapter a l s o contains a syn t h e s i s of the l i t e r a t u r e that e x i s t s concerning the b e n e f i t s of computer w r i t i n g i n terms of keyboarding, e d i t i n g , and students' a t t i t u d e s . Chapter Three provides a d e s c r i p t i o n of the study that was conducted and the s e l e c t i o n process of the w r i t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s . The method used to t r a i n the keyboarding teachers and the s t r u c t u r e of the keyboarding lessons i s d e t a i l e d . Chapter Three also contains an account of the s e l e c t i o n process used f o r the observers and t h e i r t r a i n i n g along with some observations made during the t r a i n i n g p e r i o d . A d e s c r i p t i o n of the a c t u a l w r i t i n g p e r i o d and the form of the a t t i t u d e questionnaire are 9 also discussed. The chapter ends with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the method used to analyze the data. Chapter Four provides an a n a l y s i s of the data c o l l e c t e d from the o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheets and a t t i t u d e surveys. The data i s examined u s i n g means, standard d e v i a t i o n , and t e s t i n g the d i f f e r e n c e of means f o r the two groups f o r each of the ten o b s e r v a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s and the a t t i t u d e survey. The chapter also i n c l u d e s observations that were made while the study was being conducted. A summary of the study i s provided i n chapter f i v e . The chapter i n c l u d e s f i n d i n g s , recommendations, l i m i t a t i o n s , and suggestions f o r f u r t h e r research. 10 Chapter 2 The Review of the L i t e r a t u r e Research on E d i t i n g Processes while Using Pen and Paper According to King (1978), the composing process i n w r i t i n g i n c l u d e s whatever occurs between the i n t e n t i o n to w r i t e and the completion of the w r i t i n g task. Included i n t h i s process are three stages: p r e - w r i t i n g ( p r e p a r i n g to w r i t e ) , a r t i c u l a t i o n (production of the t e x t ) , and p o s t - w r i t i n g ( e v a l u a t i o n and e d i t i n g of the t e x t ) . This i s not a l i n e a r process, as w r i t e r s are c o n s t a n t l y p l a n n i n g and r e v i s i n g while they compose (Flower and Hayes, 1981). The N a t i o n a l Assessment of Edu c a t i o n a l Progress (1977) proposed the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n f o r r e v i s i o n and e d i t i n g : . . . s u b s t i t u t i n g more appropriate words or phrases f o r p r e l i m i n a r y attempts i n the f i r s t d r a f t , adding r e l e v a n t and d e l e t i n g i r r e l e v a n t information, and atten d i n g to c a p i t a l i z a t i o n a l , punctuation and other mechanical conventions, (p. 27) H i l l o c k s ' (1987) review i l l u s t r a t e d that the amount of e d i t i n g found by researchers was d i r e c t l y dependent upon the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system, used. S t a l l a r d ' s (1974) study i n t o the r e v i s i o n methods of "good student w r i t e r s " looked at f i v e c a t e g o r i e s ( s p e l l i n g , s y n t a c t i c , m u l t i p l e word, and paragraph changes). In con t r a s t i s the the schema developed by Sommers (1978) and l a t e r r e f i n e d by B r i d w e l l (198O), which focused on operations ( a d d i t i o n , d e l e t i o n , s u b s t i t u t i o n and reordering) s u b c l a s s i f i e d by l e v e l s ( s u r f a c e , l e x i c a l , phrase, clause, sentence, multi-sentence, and t e x t ) . S t a l l a r d ' s (1974) students made an average of twelve r e v i s i o n s per composition while B r i d w e l l r e p o r t e d over sixty-one per student. The purpose of the Sommers (1978) study was to compare the r e v i s i o n methods of two groups, c o l l e g e freshman and experienced w r i t e r s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups. The experienced w r i t e r s made r e v i s i o n s that were i n the sentence l e v e l f a r more f r e q u e n t l y than the student w r i t e r s who predominantly made l e x i c a l and phrase changes. B r i d w e l l ' s (1980) study of t w e l f t h graders' r e v i s i o n s t y l e s found that students made more than 25 r e v i s i o n s to t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s and most of them (56 percent) were i n the surface and l e x i c a l l e v e l . The Na t i o n a l Assessment of Educ a t i o n a l Progress (1977) study 12 prompted students to e d i t t h e i r w r i t i n g i n c o n t r a s t to the s e l f e d i t i n g seen i n the B r i d w e l l (1980) study. Although the c r i t e r i a and research methods of the two stu d i e s d i f f e r e d , the r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r . However, as H i l l o c k s (1986) s t a t e s : The h i g h inci d e n c e of l o w e r - l e v e l r e v i s i o n s does not n e c e s s a r i l y demonstrate a preoccupation with the t r i v i a l ; there are simply more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e v i s i o n at those l e v e l s than at the sentence or multi-sentence l e v e l s , (pp. 41-42) Researchers have also noted that students' e d i t i n g a b i l i t i e s appear to be developmental. S t a l l a r d (1974) s t u d i e d the w r i t i n g behaviors of two groups of t w e l f t h graders, "good student w r i t e r s " , and a randomly s e l e c t e d group. Although the c a t e g o r i e s are not as extensive as those developed by Sommers (1978) and B r i d w e l l (1980), the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a developmental d i f f e r e n c e . The Na t i o n a l Assessment of Edu c a t i o n a l Progress (1977) i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e v i s i o n a b i l i t i e s of f i f t h , n i n t h and t w e l f t h graders. The old e r students made de c i d e d l y more s t y l i s t i c and i n f o r m a t i o n a l changes than the younger students who l a r g e l y made mechanical a l t e r a t i o n s . L i n e r (1978) looked at the r e v i s i o n s of twenty f i v e sets of papers from students i n grades 9, 10, 11, and 12. The 13 r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e from grade l e v e l to grade l e v e l . As i n the aforementioned s t u d i e s , most e d i t i n g took place at the surface and l e x i c a l l e v e l s . F u r t h e r evidence e d i t i n g a b i l i t i e s are developmental can be found i n C a l k i n s ' (1980) study. She reviewed the r e v i s i o n s of seventeen t h i r d graders and c l a s s i f i e d them i n t o f o u r groups she viewed as developmental: random d r a f t i n g , r e f i n i n g , t r a n s i t i o n , and i n t e r a c t i n g . C a l k i n s r e p o r t e d that the i n t e r a c t i n g students were more l i k e l y to add or delete i n f o r m a t i o n throughout t h e i r papers. In con t r a s t the random d r a f t i n g w r i t e r s wrote succe s s i v e d r a f t s without examining e a r l i e r d r a f t s . She concluded that the students developed h i g h e r standards of e d i t i n g f o r themselves as t h e i r w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s developed. The re s e a r c h s t u d i e s that were reviewed (Sommers,1978; Liner,1978; B r i d w e l l , 198O; Calkins,198O), i n d i c a t e d that e d i t i n g can be seen i n l e v e l s . B r i d w e l l (1980) developed a r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme which focused on operations ( a d d i t i o n , d e l e t i o n , s u b s t i t u t i o n and reo r d e r i n g ) s u b c l a s s i f i e d by l e v e l s (surface, l e x i c a l , 14 phrase, clause, sentence, multi-sentence, and t e x t ) . S t a l l a r d (1974) and L i n e r (1978) reported the d i f f e r e n c e s between the kinds of r e v i s i o n s made at d i f f e r e n t times. F i n a l l y , the m a j o r i t y of st u d i e s reviewed rep o r t e d developmental d i f f e r e n c e s . The s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e that student w r i t e r s d i s p l a y a v a r i e t y of e d i t i n g s k i l l s ranging from l o w e r - l e v e l ( s u r f a c e , l e x i c a l ) to h i g h e r - l e v e l (sentence, t e x t ) . Experienced w r i t e r s were reported to be capable of e d i t i n g i n both l e v e l s , whereas b a s i c w r i t e r s tended to deal with surface and l e x i c a l e d i t i n g . These f i n d i n g s provide s u p p o r t i n g research f o r st u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g w r i t i n g on the computer. Research on Computer W r i t i n g When students began w r i t i n g on the computer i n the l a t e 1970s and the e a r l y 1980s, a number of w r i t e r s and researchers p r a i s e d i t s c a p a b i l i t i e s to improve c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t i n g s k i l l s (Choate, 1982; Daiute, 1983; Green, 1984; Kane, 1984; O'Brien, 1984; Palmer, Dowd and James, 1984). Furthermore, many proposed that word processors could be u s e f u l i n h e l p i n g students r e v i s e 15 more r e a d i l y and s k i l l f u l l y (Daiute, 1982; Bean, 1983; Schwartz, 1984). These authors have c i t e d the computer's value i n h e l p i n g students r e v i s e by reducing the f r u s t r a t i o n s of recopying; by f a c i l i t a t i n g the reading of text during stages of the w r i t i n g p rocess; by producing neat, p u b l i s h a b l e copies from the p r i n t e r ; and by making p o s s i b l e the repr o d u c t i o n of d r a f t s of compositions f o r easy s h a r i n g with teachers and peers throughout the whole process. Keyboarding S k i l l s Two o b s t a c l e s i n computer w r i t i n g are l a c k of knowledge of and s k i l l i n e f f i c i e n t l y u s i n g the computer keyboard as i t r e l a t e s to t y p i n g s k i l l and the a b i l i t y to employ the power of the word processor a f f e c t i v e l y . Many authors are emphatic i n t h e i r acclaims f o r the b e n e f i t s of l e a r n i n g keyboarding and e f f e c t i v e word p r o c e s s i n g <Dacus, 1983; Varwood, et a l , 1985; Daiute, 1986; Cameron, 1986). Students who type b e t t e r are more e n t h u s i a s t i c about u s i n g the computer f o r w r i t i n g (Daiute, 1981). 16 In h i s review of the l i t e r a t u r e , Cameron (1986) found that i n almost every instance, c h i l d r e n completing a keyboarding course made s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n Language A r t s over c o n t r o l groups which d i d not take p a r t i n the program. S i m i l a r l y , Boles and Jensen (1984) found t h e i r f i f t h - g r a d e students reading a b i l i t y improved, averaging up to s i x t e e n percent over the c o n t r o l group a f t e r two years of keyboarding lessons. Dacus (1983) i n d i c a t e d that f a i l u r e to inc l u d e keyboarding i n the elementary c u r r i c u l u m would s e v e r e l y l i m i t the u s e f u l n e s s of a powerful e d u c a t i o n a l t o o l . It i s important f o r students to use computers more e f f i c i e n t l y through the use of keyboarding i n s t r u c t i o n . Wetzel (1985) s t a t e s that "students who can't type have a hard time u s i n g the word processor", (p. 15) The hunt and peck technique of ty p i n g may o c c a s i o n a l l y be adequate f o r microcomputer o p e r a t i o n but w i l l not be s u i t a b l e f o r l a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n s , such as typ i n g text (Stewart & Jones, 1983). Wetzel (1985) noted, f o l l o w i n g the l e a r n i n g of keyboarding s k i l l s , t y p i n g speed and accuracy should continue to improve, as students use the computer f o r academic tasks. The l i t e r a t u r e supports such a theory. 17 Maintenance of touch keyboarding s k i l l d e c l i n e s to the p o i n t of atrophy i f continuous and co n s i s t e n t reinforcement of keyboarding i n s t r u c t i o n i s not i n c l u d e d (Warwood et. a l . , 1985). Schmidt (1983) expressed a s i m i l a r concern about keyboarding when he s t a t e d that i f c h i l d r e n of the elementary age d i d not get c o n t i n u a l use of word processors the r e t e n t i o n of keyboarding s k i l l s would be do u b t f u l . Research s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d the b e n e f i t s of l e a r n i n g keyboarding (Daiute, 1986; Cameron, 1986). The e f f e c t i v e use of keyboarding allows the student to concentrate on the task of w r i t i n g (Dacus, 1983). Without c o n t i n u a l use of word processors students' p r o f i c i e n c y with keyboarding w i l l d i m i n i s h (Warwood et. a l . , 1985). E d i t i n g Research Research on computer word p r o c e s s i n g i n elementary schools provides some evidence that i t i s b e n e f i c i a l f o r w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . There are l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s on the use of word p r o c e s s i n g i n s p e c i f i c grade l e v e l s and on the impact that word p r o c e s s i n g has had on an 18 i n d i v i d u a l student's w r i t i n g (Daiute, 1982; C o l l i e r 1983, L e v i n and Boruta, 1983; Schwartz, 1985; Kahn, 1987). When compiled the research p o i n t s to two areas i n which the word processor has b e n e f i t t e d the student i n the w r i t i n g process: e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g and students' a t t i t u d e s toward w r i t i n g . The r e s e a r c h i n e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g with word processors can be d i v i d e d i n t o two ca t e g o r i e s , general and s p e c i f i c . The st u d i e s considered general reported students made fewer e r r o r s with a word proc e s s o r and that the sub j e c t s enjoyed the ease of e d i t i n g p rovided by the computer (Bean, 1983; Kurth and Stromberg, 1984; Daiute, 1984). S p e c i f i c research s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t e d the e d i t i n g operations students used and reported the r e s u l t s with a focus towards l e v e l s of e d i t i n g (Levin, Boruta, and Vasc o n c e l l o s , 1983; C o l l i e r , 1983; H a r r i s , 1985; Gerlach, 1987). General Research Studies Daiute (1984, 1985, of j u n i o r secondary found that, on post 1986) examined the w r i t i n g processes students and younger c h i l d r e n , and t e s t s , students not only c o r r e c t e d 19 more e r r o r s when working with the computers but also made fewer mistakes than with the conventional methods. D u l i n g (1985), s i m i l a r l y , noted that when the n i n t h graders she s t u d i e d r e v i s e d t h e i r hand-written d r a f t s with word processing, few e r r o r s remained i n t h e i r f i n a l d r a f t s . Her study concentrated on word p r o c e s s i n g p r i m a r i l y as a r e v i s i n g t o o l , f o r she r e q u i r e d students to w r i t e a l l d r a f t s by hand. Schwartz (1984), i n h i s study of the word processor and Grade 3 c h i l d r e n , found that the students had a good understanding of the e d i t i n g stages and were e n t h u s i a s t i c about t h e i r s t o r i e s . He reported f i n d i n g that the students c i r c l e d back i n t h e i r w r i t i n g s to add phrases or whole sentences, r e v i s i n g as they composed. Kurth and Stromberg <1984) maintained that students were able to e l i m i n a t e e r r o r s because i t was not the long l a b o r i o u s task i t was when they used pen and paper. Daiute (1982) and Bean <1983) contend that with word pr o c e s s i n g , students have a record of each of t h e i r d r a f t s , a concrete reminder of the w r i t i n g process and can t h e r e f o r e make t h e i r own d i s c o v e r i e s about t h e i r w r i t i n g s . 20 Kurth and Stromberg (1984) observed that when u s i n g word p r o c e s s i n g to wri t e , students stayed with a pi e c e of w r i t i n g , adding, d e l e t i n g , moving text, longer than they d i d with paper and p e n c i l and seemed to develop a b e t t e r sense of w r i t i n g to an audience. They r e p o r t e d that students u s i n g word p r o c e s s i n g f e l t that they had w r i t t e n longer compositions and p e r s o n a l l y f e l t they c o u l d w r i t e s u c c e s s f u l l y . The word processor, according to Bean (1983), allows the emergent w r i t e r the luxury of mane u v e r a b i l i t y without tedium. Some resea r c h s t u d i e s looked beyond u s i n g the computer as an " e l e c t r o n i c p e n c i l " and prompted the students to ed i t v a r i o u s f e a t u r e s i n t h e i r s t o r i e s . Daiute (1982) conducted a year- l o n g study with grade-six students working with a word processor which provided prompts and, through l i m i t e d t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s , gave suggestions f o r r e v i s i o n . She found that both the word p r o c e s s o r and other r e v i s i o n prompts l e d to more frequent and v a r i e d r e v i s i o n s . The program, an adapted v e r s i o n of Word Story, r e q u i r e d the students to be f a m i l i a r with more than the average ten f u n c t i o n keystrokes that most current word processors use. Although Daiute (1982) found her students had d i f f i c u l t y mastering the 21 necessary keystrokes to perform the a d d i t i o n a l prompts, they d i d not resent the on-screen e d i t i n g the programme suggested. C o l l i e r (1983) supports t h i s by concluding that h i s students c a r r i e d over what they had l e a r n e d about s t y l e and a p p l i e d t h i s to te x t s not w r i t t e n on a word processor. A program that i n c l u d e s a s p e l l i n g checker can help students compose more f r e e l y i n the f i r s t stages of t h e i r composing, p e r m i t t i n g them to concentrate on iss u e s besides s p e l l i n g as they compose (Marcus, 1987). S p e l l i n g checkers w i l l not f i n d e r r o r s with homonyms but the search-and-replace f u n c t i o n of the word p r o c e s s o r helps a w r i t e r who can i d e n t i f y h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c m i s s p e l l i n g s . The student can concentrate on one e r r o r at a time (Schwartz, 1984). S p e c i f i c Research Studies H a r r i s (1985) s t u d i e d the e f f e c t of word p r o c e s s i n g on the h a b i t s of s i x u n i v e r s i t y freshmen. Her subjects were r e q u i r e d to write four papers, two us i n g a word proce s s o r and two by hand. She had the students submit each d r a f t of t h e i r papers along with the f i n a l 22 products. In a d d i t i o n she observed the students at work on t h e i r r e v i s i o n s and interviewed them regarding t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and perceptions about w r i t i n g . A l l s i x of the p a r t i c i p a n t s were p r o f i c i e n t t y p i s t s and had numerous years experience with w r i t i n g on a computer. Her f i n d i n g s do not support the assumption that u s i n g a word proce s s o r encourages more meaningful r e v i s i o n . H a r r i s found t h a t : the m a j o r i t y of the r e v i s i o n s made by the w r i t e r s i n v o l v e d minor changes i n surface f e a t u r e s of the text r a t h e r than changes i n the macrostructure. (p. 328) It must be noted, however, that the r e s u l t s of t h i s study agree with the f i n d i n g s of B r i d w e l l (1980) and The Na t i o n a l Assesment of Educ a t i o n a l Progress (1977) when they found that a m a j o r i t y of the changes with pen and paper were at the surface and l e x i c a l l e v e l s . L e v i n , Boruta, and Vasconcellos (1983) developed a w r i t i n g environment that not only provided word p r o c e s s i n g c a p a b i l i t y f o r i t s users but also maintained a r e c o r d of the keystroke a c t i o n s taken by the w r i t e r s . An a n a l y s i s of these keystrokes allowed them to study both the changes i n product made i n the course of a w r i t i n g episode and the trace of the w r i t i n g process 23 used. They found that the m a j o r i t y of d e l e t i o n s i n v o l v e d the use of the delete key f o r s i n g l e c h a r a c t e r erasures during the entry of new tex t . C o l l i s (1988) s t a t e s that the power of the word processor i s being employed p r i m a r i l y to c o r r e c t s u p e r f i c i a l e r r o r s of s p e l l i n g , c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , or punctuation r a t h e r than to f a c i l i t a t e a more c r e a t i v e approach to the w r i t i n g process, (p.124) A s i m i l a r f i n d i n g was reported by C o l l i e r (1983). He found that the use of a text e d i t o r i n c r e a s e d the number of surface r e v i s i o n s but l i t t l e whole-text r e v i s i o n was accomplished by the students observed. The q u a l i t y of the student essays was not a f f e c t e d by the r e v i s i o n e f f o r t s of the students. However, C o l l i e r (1983) noted that the word pro c e s s o r h i s f i f t h - g r a d e students used was so d i f f i c u l t to master that much of t h e i r energy and time was spent l e a r n i n g to manipulate the word p r o c e s s i n g system i t s e l f . Gerlach (1987) reported f i n d i n g no evidence that keyboarding s k i l l s insure that students w i l l w r i t e longer papers, nor that students would make a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r number of r e v i s i o n s . Her study 24 investigated, fourth-grade students and the e f f e c t t y p i n g s k i l l s had when us i n g a word processor f o r composition. Half of the students were given an eight week s e s s i o n with keyboarding s k i l l s . Both groups r e c e i v e d an hour and h a l f l e s s o n on the use of a word processor. Gerlach's (1987) study was unique i n that i t looked at how keyboarding may a f f e c t students' e d i t i n g ; however, she warns that the students may have not reached p r o f i c i e n c y with keyboarding, the word processor or the r e v i s i n g s k i l l s needed f o r a p p l i c a t i o n , (p. 11) Students' A t t i t u d e s Observations of students and a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s have confirmed the m o t i v a t i o n a l value of us i n g word p r o c e s s i n g (Bean 1983; Kurth and Stromberg 1984; Kurth, 1987). Schwartz (1984) noted that a room f u l l of word p r o c e s s i n g computers not only brought w r i t e r s together but i t also encouraged a sense of e n t e r p r i s e and accomplishment among the users and that t h i s community of w r i t e r s provides a n e a r l y i d e a l s e t t i n g f o r c o l l a b o r a t i v e l e a r n i n g . V e t z e l (1987) i n t e r v i e w e d one 25 hundred t h i r d , f o u r t h and f i f t h graders and found that most students p r e f e r r e d to use a word proc e s s o r f o r w r i t i n g . However he does c a u t i o n that some students s t a t e d that they found the computer h e l p f u l only during the r e v i s i n g and e d i t i n g stage and not during t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t , where they p r e f e r r e d p e n c i l and paper. Woodruff, B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982) asked s i x t h -grade students who had r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n the use of a word proc e s s o r to compare w r i t i n g done on a word pr o c e s s o r with w r i t i n g done u s i n g p e n c i l and paper. The students i n d i c a t e d that u s i n g a computer made w r i t i n g e a s i e r , b e t t e r and more enjoyable than u s i n g a p e n c i l and paper. In a second study, t h i r t y - s i x eighth-graders r e f l e c t e d the same a t t i t u d e s . The researchers concluded that u s i n g t e x t - w r i t i n g programs f o s t e r e d students' p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward w r i t i n g (Woodruff, B e r e i t e r , Scardamalia, 1982). In her classroom experience, O'Brien (1984) reported that the f a s c i n a t i o n of w r i t i n g with the computer i s that tasks once dreaded by a w r i t e r , f o r instance the r a d i c a l reshaping and e d i t i n g of a long text i n v o l v i n g cut and paste techniques, become enjoyable. Daiute 26 (1984, 1985) and C u r t i s s (1984) s t a t e that students d i s p l a y more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward the a c t i v i t y of w r i t i n g than classmates working with conventional t o o l s . L a r t e r (1987) i n v e s t i g a t e d the a t t i t u d e s of f i r s t , t h i r d and sixth-grade students towards w r i t i n g . She report e d that sixth-grade students f e l t that w r i t i n g was " l e s s d i f f i c u l t " and "more u s e f u l " when they used the computer. Ca l k i n s (1987), however, also i n d i c a t e d that these f e e l i n g s were not as widespread amongst the f i r s t -and t h i r d - g r a d e c h i l d r e n . This f i n d i n g may be a t t r i b u t e d to the keyboarding c a p a b i l i t i e s of the younger students (Daiute, 1981). Robinson-Stavely and Cooper (1990) uncovered s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s i n t h e i r study of E n g l i s h composition c o l l e g e students, but t h i s study i n v o l v e d students who had l i t t l e or no previous experience with word p r o c e s s i n g . Adams (1985) found that secondary-level E n g l i s h students showed a d e c l i n e i n m o t i v a t i o n toward u s i n g word p r o c e s s i n g a f t e r t h e i r i n i t i a l i n t e r e s t r a p i d l y subsided. She c i t e s l a c k of ty p i n g s k i l l s , i n s u f f i c i e n t equipment, problems with software and hardware, and in a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t i n g assignments as reasons why her 27 students f e l t o v e r a l l that 11 computers took too much time out of the course" (p.18) a f t e r a year's worth of use. Daiute (1982) and Bean (1983) concluded that students found the computer to be a c a t a l y s t to w r i t i n g . They repor t e d that students s a i d they enjoyed w r i t i n g because of the technology used to perform the task. Robinson-S t a v e l y and Cooper (1990) s t a t e d that The use of a computer on an ongoing b a s i s i n a w r i t i n g course has a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on a t t i t u d e s toward computers and has no e f f e c t on a t t i t u d e s toward the course or toward w r i t i n g , (p.47) Robinson-Stavely and Cooper (1990) conclude that t h e i r r e s u l t s p o i n t to the value f o r continued research i n t o "the exact nature of the computer's e f f e c t on composition", (p.47) Summary Research i n t o e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n with pen and paper i n d i c a t e s that student w r i t e r s e d i t i n g a b i l i t i e s are developmental ( S t a l l a r d , 1978; L i n e r , 1978). However, e d i t i n g f o r experienced and b a s i c w r i t e r s takes p l a c e at the surface and l e x i c a l l e v e l s due to the frequency of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e d i t i n g at these l e v e l s ( H i l l o c k s , 28 1986). Experienced w r i t e r s were found to r e v i s e more f r e q u e n t l y i n the sentence and text l e v e l s than b a s i c w r i t e r s . W r i t i n g on the computer has been hera l d e d by researchers as being b e n e f i c i a l and m o t i v a t i o n a l (Daiute, 1983; Kane, 1984). The a c q u i s i t i o n of p r o f i c i e n t keyboarding s k i l l s was an area of concern i n some l i t e r a t u r e (Wetzel, 1985; Warwood et. a l . , 1985). It was also r e p o r t e d that unless students are given ample op p o r t u n i t y to use word processors, r e t e n t i o n of the keyboarding s k i l l s would be doubtful (Schmidt, 1983). In reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e surrounding e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g with the computer, i t became evident that two s t y l e s of research s t u d i e s have evolved, general and s p e c i f i c . The general s t u d i e s reviewed i n d i c a t e d that w r i t i n g on a computer allowed the students g r e a t e r ease i n e d i t i n g and that w r i t e r s made l e s s e r r o r s when u s i n g a word processor. They d i d not however, d e t a i l the types of e r r o r s that students c o r r e c t e d . H a r r i s (1985), C o l l i e r (1983) and Gerlach (1987) reported on s p e c i f i c 29 l e v e l s of e d i t i n g and concluded that a m a j o r i t y of e d i t i n g took place at the surface and l e x i c a l l e v e l s . The i s s u e s surrounding the importance of keyboarding s k i l l s and p r o f i c i e n c y with word processors were r a i s e d by Gerlach (1987) and C o l l i e r (1983). The m o t i v a t i o n a l aspect of word processors i s very evident and i s h a i l e d as the major f a c t o r i n the improvement of young w r i t e r s (Schwartz, 1984; C u r t i s s , 1984). As S u t t l e (1983) s t a t e s , "With a t e x t - e d i t i n g system to overcome the mechanical b a r r i e r s of w r i t i n g , student m o t i v a t i o n w i l l be high", (p.34) There i s an i n d i c a t i o n i n the research that inadequate keyboarding s k i l l s and u n f a m i l i a r i t y with a word proc e s s o r can a f f e c t students' a t t i t u d e (Adams, 1985; L a r t e r , 1987). Robinson-Stavely and Cooper (1990) r a i s e d the iss u e that students' p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards w r i t i n g on the computer are d i r e c t e d to the computer not w r i t i n g . In c o n c l u s i o n , the research i n d i c a t e s that although computers have m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s and allow f o r gre a t e r ease i n e d i t i n g , the e d i t i n g which students do i s s t i l l regarded as l o w e r - l e v e l when compared to Br i d w e l l ' s (1980) s c a l e . However, researchers also 30 s t a t e that proper keyboarding s k i l l s and p r o f i c i e n c y with word p r o c e s s i n g may d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the students' e d i t i n g a b i l i t i e s . Furthermore, the l i t e r a t u r e also noted that the p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e students have about w r i t i n g on the computer may be centered around the t e c h n o l o g i c a l t o o l they use r a t h e r than the a c t u a l w r i t i n g . 31 Chapter 3 Methodology This study i n v o l v e d two groups of seventh-grade students. The One-year Group c o n s i s t e d of students who had one year of keyboard t r a i n i n g and one year of experience with a word processor. The Three year Group c o n s i s t e d of students who had a minimum of three years of keyboard t r a i n i n g and a minimum of three years' experience with a word processor. The students had a l l attended schools w i t h i n the same d i s t r i c t f o r the previous three years. These two groups spent a f o r t y -minute p e r i o d composing on the computer while being observed by grade-six students. The grade-six students recorded the e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g techniques that were employed by the two groups. The data f o r the two groups were then compared to determine i f there was a d i f f e r e n c e i n e d i t i n g techniques. The seventh-grade students were also given a w r i t i n g o p i n i o n survey which attempted to d i s c o v e r an a t t i t u d i n a l d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups. 32 Student i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The seventh-grade teachers of the t h i r t y - s i x elementary schools i n the d i s t r i c t were asked to i d e n t i f y students who f i t e i t h e r of the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s : 1) three or more school years i n which they had r e c e i v e d keyboard t r a i n i n g and frequent use of a word processor, 2) one school year i n which they had r e c e i v e d keyboard t r a i n i n g and frequent use of a word processor. F i n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l candidates was done by the school-based computer resource person. The computer resource teachers had been at t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e schools f o r more than three years and v e r i f i e d the computer i n s t r u c t i o n that had been a v a i l a b l e to students. Three schools reported students i n group one, and two schools reported students i n the second group. A l l students who were i n i t i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d i n e i t h e r category r e c e i v e d a questionnaire that asked: 1. How many years have you attended elementary school i n t h i s d i s t r i c t ? 2. Do you have a computer at home? 3. Do you use the home computer f o r word processing? 33 4. How many years have you been u s i n g word processors? 5. How many years of formal keyboard t r a i n i n g have you had? The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was i n c l u d e d to ensure that the One-year Group contained only those students with one year's experience. The f i n a l p o p u l a t i o n of the One-year Group was f i f t y - s i x students and of the Three-year Group s i x t y students. There were no circumstances where an e n t i r e c l a s s was used. Students were taken from t h e i r r e g u l a r c l a s s e s i n groups no l a r g e r than f i f t e e n and worked i n the computer l a b . W r i t i n g i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of a l l c l a s s e s i n the d i s t r i c t . The teachers w i t h i n the d i s t r i c t had r e c e i v e d i n s e r v i c e i n the teaching of the w r i t i n g process. W r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s are generated around the Whole Language/thematic approach. The w r i t i n g process i n c l u d e s three stages: p r e w r i t i n g (preparing to w r i t e ) , a r t i c u l a t i o n (production of the t e x t ) , and post w r i t i n g ( e v a l u a t i o n and e d i t i n g of the t e x t ) . W r i t i n g lessons focus on the i n t e g r a t i o n of language a r t s and content areas, on the use of q u a l i t y reading m a t e r i a l s , on modelling, and on the c r e a t i o n of dynamic classroom 34 language communities centered on the c h i l d . Because a l l students had attended d i s t r i c t schools f o r the past three years they were products of t h i s t r a i n i n g i n w r i t i n g . To i n s u r e that the w r i t i n g students w i t h i n the study represented a spectrum of the students i n grade seven throughout the d i s t r i c t , the Language A r t s l e t t e r grades f o r the f i f t h , s i x t h and seventh-grades were recorded and s t a t i s t i c a l l y compared. The students' sexes were also recorded. Treatment Keyboarding and word p r o c e s s i n g i s normally p r o v i d e d by the d i s t r i c t and was not a p a r t of t h i s study. Teachers are given i n s e r v i c e i n both keyboard t r a i n i n g and word proce s s o r usage. Keyboarding Programs In the d i s t r i c t two t y p i n g programs, A l l the Right Tvne p u b l i s h e d by Didatech Inc., Burnaby, B.C. and Microtvpe.  The Wonderful World Of Paws p u b l i s h e d by Southern 35 P u b l i s h i n g Co., C i n c i n n a t i , OH. have been i n use f o r the past three years. These t u t o r i a l s i n c l u d e 18 lessons which i n v o l v e l e a r n i n g to touch type a l l l e t t e r s of the alphabet and some s p e c i a l computer keyboard keys. The programs a l s o i n c l u d e speed t e s t s which are normally administered at the end of the second, f o u r t h and s i x t h weeks. T r a i n i n g of Keyboarding Teachers Computer teachers would normally be given a f u l l day i n -s e r v i c e on the programs. They were shown how to conduct the i n d i v i d u a l lessons found with the software and the necessary methods of record keeping. The keyboarding t r a i n e r would teach the i n i t i a l three c l a s s e s to the students at the i n d i v i d u a l schools while the teacher observed. The f o u r t h and succeeding c l a s s e s would be taught by the teacher. The keyboard t r a i n e r would observe the teacher and give appropriate feed back and a s s i s t a n c e . 36 Student Keyboarding Lessons The keyboarding c l a s s e s would take place over a six-veek p e r i o d , with a t o t a l of no l e s s than 15 hours' i n s t r u c t i o n . The lessons were f o r t y minutes i n l e n g t h and conducted d a i l y . The time during the school year i n which the students r e c e i v e d keyboarding g e n e r a l l y v a r i e d according to the i n d i v i d u a l teacher's schedule. The teachers of the Three-year Group of students u s u a l l y taught the same lessons themselves i n the second and t h i r d years. Word Processors FrEd Writer, Appleworks and M u l t i - S c r i b e word processors were used by a l l students. FrEd W r i t e r i s a simple word pr o c e s s o r with seven b u i l t - i n e d i t i n g commands. Appleworks and M u l t i - S c r i b e are more s o p h i s t i c a t e d word processors with more than twenty e d i t i n g commands. Observational Sheets. A f t e r personal observations of a range of students u s i n g the computer as a w r i t i n g t o o l and a review of the 37 l i t e r a t u r e , a l i s t of the most f r e q u e n t l y used methods of e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g vas created. In c o n s u l t a t i o n with members of the B.C. W r i t i n g and Reading Assessment Committee, Burnaby and Richmond Computer S p e c i a l i s t s and classroom teachers the f i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheet was developed. The review of the l i t e r a t u r e r evealed v a r i o u s l e v e l s of e d i t i n g . Surface e d i t i n g , l e x i c a l e d i t i n g and phrase/sentence e d i t i n g were the most f r e q u e n t l y employed by student w r i t e r s ( B r i d w e l l , 1980; F a i g l e y and White, 1984 and Kurth and Stromberg, 1984). The c a t e g o r i e s used on the o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheet are r e l a t e d to these three l e v e l s . Observers were not aware of the i n t e n t of the study i n order to guard against t h e i r observations being b i a s e d towards e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g . The l a s t four of the c a t e g o r i e s are i n c l u d e d to d i s g u i s e the purpose. The c a t e g o r i e s were: 1. Student del e t e d a sentence. 2 . Student c o r r e c t e d a simple typo with the delete key. 3. Student made a s p e l l i n g c o r r e c t i o n . 38 4 . Student made a punctuation c o r r e c t i o n . 5. Student i n s e r t e d a word. 6. Student d e l e t e d a vord. 7. Student moved cursor. 8. Student used b u i l t i n e d i t i n g commands. 9. Student stopped t y p i n g and paused f o r more than 30 seconds. 10. Student was c o n t i n u a l l y t y p i n g f o r more than 30 seconds. The c a t e g o r i e s r e q u i r e d the observers to determine whether the a l t e r a t i o n was due to a s p e l l i n g e r r o r , a pun c t u a t i o n c o r r e c t i o n or a t y p i n g mistake. A s p e l l i n g e r r o r was to be recorded when a subject completed a word, i n d i c a t e d when a space was p l a c e d a f t e r the word, and then returned to a l t e r the s p e l l i n g . A typo was recorded whenever the student used the delete key to c o r r e c t an e r r o r due to a keyboarding mistake (an a l t e r a t i o n before i n d i c a t i n g characters were a word). A t a l l y was recorded f o r sentence d e l e t i o n when more than f i v e words were d e l e t e d at one time. The study d i d not ask the observers to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between a phrase and a sentence. To evaluate the r e v i s i o n s , a taxonomy modeled on the s t u d i e s of Kurth and Stromberg (1987) and H i l l o c k s 39 (198?) was developed (Table 1). The three l e v e l s ( s u r f a c e , l e x i c a l and phrase/sentence) were considered. Multi-sentence e d i t i n g and paragraph e d i t i n g were not used because the research i n d i c a t e d students at the grade l e v e l used i n t h i s study r a r e l y d e l e t e d more than one sentence at one time (Kurth and Stromberg 1987; B r i d w e l l , 1980). Table 1 A Taxonomy of E d i t i n g L e v e l s L e v e l s Categories Observed 1.Surface Delete Typo S p e l l i n g C o r r e c t i o n Punctuation Change 2 . L e x i c a l Delete Word Insert Word 3 .Phrase/Sentence Delete Sentence Observers. The and observers' tasks were reco r d a t a l l y on the to watch the computer screen o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheet whenever ko the w r i t i n g student performed one of the ten operations l i s t e d on the sheet. The observers were grade-six students from the same school. One week before the study a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n was h e l d f o r grade-six students. They were a l l given a copy of the f i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheet and the v a r i o u s terms were d e f i n e d and discussed. The c l a s s was shown a seven minute video of a student composing on the computer and they were asked to complete the o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheet. A l l of the o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheets were taken i n and the data recorded. The video was rep l a y e d f o r the students and the i n s t r u c t o r i n d i c a t e d when the students should have recorded an i n c i d e n t on the o b s e r v a t i o n sheet. The same procedure was conducted two more times. During a second p e r i o d , the students were d i v i d e d i n t o groups of two and the p a i r observed a student composing on the computer. An observer was p l a c e d on e i t h e r side of a screen and t h e i r r e s u l t s were compared and discussed. A f i n a l video was shown and the students recorded t h e i r observations. Each video was viewed by f i v e elementary teachers who then developed an answer guide to a s s i s t i n the grading 41 of the f o u r videos. The o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheets were graded and the f o u r marks were compared. Students who had achieved 70 percent or more c o r r e c t on the f i r s t three sheets and at l e a s t 90 percent c o r r e c t on the f i n a l video were s e l e c t e d as p o t e n t i a l observers. On the day of the study the names of observers r e q u i r e d were drawn at random from the group of candidates. During the t r a i n i n g of the observers three i n d i c a t o r s of observers s k i l l s became apparent: observer's experience with computers, observer's experience with word processors and observer's a b i l i t y to d i s c r i m i n a t e between c o r r e c t i o n of typos, s p e l l i n g c o r r e c t i o n and punc t u a t i o n c o r r e c t i o n . There appeared to be a hi g h c o r r e l a t i o n between the three f a c t o r s . Those students with computer experience were more s u c c e s s f u l on the f i r s t three sheets than those students with l i t t l e experience. The observers were given a questionnaire to determine t h e i r l e v e l s of computer w r i t i n g experience. They were asked the f o l l o w i n g questions: 1. Do you have a computer at home? 42 2. Do you use the home computer f o r vord processing? 3. Hov many years have you been u s i n g vord processors? 4. Hov many years of formal keyboard t r a i n i n g have you had? The students who i n d i c a t e d they had tvo or more years of keyboarding and word proc e s s o r use were more s u c c e s s f u l i n completing the o b s e r v a t i o n a l sheets. Grade-six students with l e s s than two years of w r i t i n g on the computer scored an average of 68.2 percent on the f i r s t three o b s e r v a t i o n a l t e s t s and 82.3 percent on the f i n a l t e s t . In comparison, grade-six students with more than two years of computer w r i t i n g experience scored an average of 75.7 percent on the f i r s t three o b s e r v a t i o n a l t e s t s and 9 0 . 3 percent on the f i n a l t e s t . Both groups had d i f f i c u l t y d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between typo c o r r e c t i o n s and s p e l l i n g e r r o r s on the f i r s t three video t e s t s . During the second p e r i o d , when the students were d i v i d e d i n t o groups of two and the p a i r observed a student composing on the computer, they appeared to overcome t h i s d i f f i c u l t y and were more s u c c e s s f u l on the l a s t video t e s t . The e r r o r s made i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g 43 between typos and s p e l l i n g e r r o r s decreased f o r the observers with l e s s than one years' experience by 35 per cent and 42.5 per cent f o r the observers with two or more years' experience. W r i t i n g p e r i o d s . The seventh-grade students were asked to use the computer to compose an e x p o s i t o r y paper d i s c u s s i n g the merits or disadvantages of having seventh-grade students attend elementary schools. A t h i r t y minute p r e - l e s s o n i n b r a i n s t o r m i n g and webbing was conducted the day before the students entered the computer la b . The students were given f o r t y continuous minutes to compose t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s on the computer. During the forty-minute p e r i o d of w r i t i n g , each student was observed by three d i f f e r e n t students. The purpose of the observations was to determine what e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n techniques were employed by the students. The observers watched the computer screen and recorded the r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s of a s i n g l e student f o r seven minutes and then moved to another. It was f e l t that sixth-grade students would have d i f f i c u l t y f o c u s s i n g i n t e n t l y on one screen f o r twenty-one minutes. This o b s e r v a t i o n a l approach was chosen to allow the students the chance to refocus on a new s i t u a t i o n . Each grade-seven w r i t e r was observed by three students f o r a t o t a l of twenty-one minutes. The o b s e r v a t i o n a l p e r i o d s d i d not begin u n t i l the ten-minute mark of the w r i t i n g p e r i o d . This was done to allow f o r last-minute classroom management i n s t r u c t i o n s from the teacher and to allow the student time to adjust to the w r i t i n g environment. The l a s t seven minutes of c l a s s c o n s i s t e d of d i s k management and w r i t i n g g e n e r a l l y d i d not occur. The observers had one minute t r a v e l l i n g time between observations. A t t i t u d e Questionnaire. One week a f t e r the w r i t i n g s e s s i o n , the seventh-grade students were given a questionnaire (Appendix 1) to determine whether there was a d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e towards w r i t i n g between the two groups. The o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed f o r the B.C. Assessment on Reading and W r i t i n g f o r 1988. It was designed by J e r o s k i (1982) and was used i n both the 1984 and 1988 45 B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of E x p r e s s i o n Assessments. The not c o n t a i n any reference to Education W r i t t e n a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n n a i r e does computers. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine whether those students who had been u s i n g the computer as a w r i t i n g t o o l f o r three years had a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards w r i t i n g . A f i v e minute d i s c u s s i o n was h e l d with the students concerning personal o p i n i o n and the questionnaire was handed out. Any terms r e f e r r e d to i n the o p i n i o n survey that were not understood by the students were d e f i n e d and discussed. The students were given twenty minutes to complete the questionnaire. Method of A n a l y s i s . The minimum, maximum, range, mean, r e l a t i v e frequency and standard d e v i a t i o n of each of the ten o b s e r v a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s were generated. The n u l l hypothesis < Ho) was; there would be no d i f f e r e n c e between the e d i t i n g a b i l i t i e s of the two groups. The a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis ( H 1) t h e r e f o r e was; there would be a d i f f e r e n c e between 46 the e d i t i n g a b i l i t i e s of the two groups. It was not known i n advance which group would demonstrate the gre a t e r events i n each e d i t i n g category, so t w o - t a i l e d t e s t s were used. The means would normally be compared u s i n g a t - t e s t . However t h i s t e s t r e q u i r e s that the variance of the two groups be the same (the variance i s pooled). This assumption i s not warranted here. Therefore the means are compared by c a l c u l a t i n g the z-score of the d i f f e r e n c e between the means and c a l c u l a t i n g the p r o b a b l i l i t y of that z-value on the normal curve. From t a b l e s (Walpole, 1983), a z-value of l e s s than -2.58 or gre a t e r than 2.58 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.01 l e v e l . 47 Chapter 4 A n a l y s i s of Resu l t s In t h i s chapter the r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the data are reported. An i n d i v i d u a l comparison of the means recorded f o r the ten c a t e g o r i e s was conducted. The means, standard d e v i a t i o n , d i f f e r e n c e of means, z-value and p r o b a b i l i t y f a c t o r are recorded i n t a b l e formats. The s t a t i s t i c a l data r e c e i v e d from the a t t i t u d e survey i s discussed. The t h i r d s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter deals with the observations made while the study was being conducted. A summary of the r e s u l t s from the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s c l o s e s the chapter. The One-year Group i s def i n e d as those students who had a maximum of one year of keyboard t r a i n i n g and a maximum of one year of experience with a word processor. The Three-year Group i s defined as those students who had a minimum of three year's of keyboard t r a i n i n g and a minimum of three year's experience with a word processor. 48 The students represent a spectrum of c h i l d r e n c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d i n the seventh-grade. The l e t t e r grades are based on a seven-point sc a l e (A=1,E=7). The means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r both groups were t a b u l a t e d (Table 2). A t - t e s t shoved that there vere no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betveen the tvo groups. The academic achievement of the students vas not an i n t e r f e r i n g f a c t o r . Table 2 L e t t e r Grades f o r Language A r t s of One-year Group and Three-year Group One-year Group Three-year Group (n=56) (n=60) Mean SD Mean SD p-value 3.47. 1.24 3.61 1.43 0.06 The p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n of males and females i s l i s t e d i n Table 3. The r a t i o of male to female i s r e l a t i v e l y equal v i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l groups. Furthermore the r a t i o s are f a i r l y equal f o r the vhole p o p u l a t i o n . Table 3 Sex D i s t r i b u t i o n of One-year Group and Three-year Group One-year Group (n=56) Three-year Group (n=60> Male Female Male Female 25 31 27 33 49 The minimum, maximum, range, mean, r e l a t i v e frequency and standard d e v i a t i o n of each of the ten o b s e r v a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s were generated. Two-tailed t e s t s were conducted on each category grouped by years of experience, and the r e s u l t s are presented i n Table 4. The t w o - t a i l e d t e s t s compared the means of the One-year Group and the Three-year Group scores. In these comparisons, a z-value of l e s s than -2.58 or g r e a t e r than 2.58 was considered s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.01 l e v e l . As seen i n Table 4, a l l c a t e g o r i e s but one, " S p e l l i n g C o r r e c t i o n " were, considered s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The z-value f o r the S p e l l i n g C o r r e c t i o n category was, however, outside the c r i t i c a l value ( ± 1 . 6 9 ) f o r the 0.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The One-year Group recorded means that were lower than the Three-year Group i n eight of the ten c a t e g o r i e s that were observed. Category 2, "Delete a Typo", and Category 9, "Stopped Typing", were the only c a t e g o r i e s i n which the One-year Group recorded g r e a t e r means. Although the l a s t f o u r c a t e g o r i e s were not considered forms of e d i t i n g and t h e r e f o r e not used i n Table 5, t h e i r r e s u l t s are worth no t i n g . The z-values f o r these c a t e g o r i e s are a l l w e l l outside the c r i t i c a l value ± 2 . 5 8 Table 4 Frequencies of e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s - One-year Group vs. Three-year Group One-year Group Three-year Group D e s c r i p t i o n <n= Mean 56) SD <n= Mean 60) SD Di f f e r e n c e of Means z-value Prob. 1 Delete sentence 0. 25 0.51 4.33 2.66 4.08 -10.91** 0. 002 2 Delete a typo 15.21 7. 13 10.23 4.67 -5.02^ 4.14** 0. 008 3 S p e l l i n g C o r r e c t i o n 4. 27 3.11 5.73 5.03 1.46 -1.85 0.057 4 Punctuation Change 1.07 1.02 2. 23 2. 08 1.16 -3.89** 0.008 5 Inserted Vord 1.30 1.09 6.33 4. 15 5.03 -8.43** 0.003 6 Deleted Vord 2.14 2.47 9.73 5.85 7.59 -8.84** 0.003 7 Cursor Movement 3. 82 4.24 8.05 4.61 5.23 -4.82** 0.007 8 B u i l t - i n Commands 0.5 0.89 6. 15 3. 18 5.65 - 12.00** 0.001 9 Stopped Typing 7. 62 4.74 2.47 1.85 -4.85^ 7.42** 0.003 10 Continual Typing 1. 82 2. 1? 5.75 3.69 3.93 -7-16** 0.003 Note: a = The One-year Group recorded a higher mean than the Three-year Group. ** - P< 0.01 51 f o r the 0.01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The r e s u l t s f o r Category 8, " B u i l t - i n Commands", i n d i c a t e s the Three-year Group accessed the povers of the vord p r o c e s s o r more f r e q u e n t l y than the One-year Group. In Category 9, "Student stopped t y p i n g and paused f o r more than 30 seconds", and Category 10, "Student vas con t i n u o u s l y t y p i n g f o r more than 30 seconds" the observers vere t r a i n e d to record a t a l l y vhen the student vas e i t h e r pausing or t y p i n g f o r 30 seconds or more. Any s h o r t e r time p e r i o d vas not recorded. Therefore the z-values are accurate only f o r a p e r i o d of time g r e a t e r than 30 seconds. Furthermore, the a c t i o n s of the students during t h e i r pauses vas not recorded. The c a t e g o r i e s vere grouped according to the taxonomy suggested i n chapter three and the means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , d i f f e r e n c e of means and z-values vere c a l c u l a t e d (Table 5). There vas a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e betveen the tvo groups at the l e x i c a l and sentence/phrase l e v e l s , but no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found at the surface l e v e l . The d i f f e r e n c e of means of the three l e v e l s f o r the One-year Group i s 6.65 i n comparison to the 2.5 recorded f o r the Three-Year Group. 52 On the average, students i n both groups e d i t e d at the surface l e v e l more f r e q u e n t l y than the other two l e v e l s . Table 5 L e v e l s of E d i t i n g - One-year Group vs. Three-year Group One-year Three-year (n=56) (n=60) D i f f e r e n c e L e v e l Mean SD Mean SD of Means z-value Prob. Surface 6.8 7.4 6.1 4.0 - . 3 a 0.16 0.71 L e x i c a l 1.7 0.60 5.7 2.4 4.0 -7.23** 0.003 Sentence Phrase 0.25 0-51 4-33 2.66 4.08 -10.91* 0.002 Note: a = The One-year Group recorded a highe r mean than the Three-year Group. ** = p< 0.01 * = p< 0.05 F i g u r e 1a, Comparison of Means f o r I n d i v i d u a l E d i t i n g Categories, and Figure 1b, Comparison of Means f o r Le v e l s of E d i t i n g , i l l u s t r a t e a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e on the study's r e s u l t s . Figure 1a g r a p h i c a l l y demonstrates the d i f f e r e n c e s that were found between the two groups, i n p a r t i c u l a r the extensive use of the delete key by the S3 F i g u r e 1a Comparison of Means f o r I n d i v i d u a l E d i t i n g Categories Del. Sent. Del. Typo Spelling Punctuation Inserted Word Del. Word Editing Categories ' E30ne-Year Group 0Three-year Group F i g u r e '1b Comparison of Means f o r L e v e l s of E d i t i n g 7.0 Surface Lexical Sent./Phrase Levels of Editing • One-Year Group E3 Three-year Group 5h One-year Group. Furthermore, F i g u r e 1a i l l u s t r a t e s a r e l a t i v e l y evenly balanced e d i t i n g s t y l e by the Three-Year Group. F i g u r e 1b i n d i c a t e s that when viewed i n l e v e l s , both groups e d i t e d at the surface l e v e l the most, then the l e x i c a l l e v e l and f i n a l l y the l e a s t amount of e d i t i n g occurred i n the sentence/phrase l e v e l . Student's A t t i t u d e Towards W r i t i n g R e s u l t s of the opinions about w r i t i n g survey are l i s t e d i n Table 6, Student A t t i t u d e Survey. The survey was grouped i n t o two s e c t i o n s , p o s i t i v e questions 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9 and negative questions 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10. The ca t e g o r i e s , " s t r o n g l y agree", "agree", "can't decide", "disagree" and " s t r o n g l y disagree" were given the numerical r a t i n g of 1 to 5 (1 = s t r o n g l y agree) f o r the p o s i t i v e questions. This procedure was reversed f o r the negative questions (5 = s t r o n g l y agree). An o v e r a l l mean was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each group and independent t -t e s t s , grouped by years of experience, were conducted. The t - t e s t s y i e l d e d the t-value f o r the means between the One-year Group and the Three-year Group scores. 55 Table 6 Student A t t i t u d e Survey R e s u l t s f o r the One-year Group and the Three-year Group  D i f f e r e n c e Mean SD of Means t-value Prob. One-year Group 2.43 1.46 0.24 -0.98 0.11 Three-year Group 2.67 1.89 The r e s u l t s of t h i s a t t i t u d e survey show that there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups. Experience with w r i t i n g on the computer does not appear to a f f e c t the students a t t i t u d e towards w r i t i n g . It must also be noted that the scores f o r both groups i n d i c a t e a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards w r i t i n g . Observations During W r i t i n g Periods Students i n the One-year Group and the Three-year Group d i s p l a y e d c o n t r a s t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s throughout the study. The a c t i o n s of the One-year Group students were c o n s i s t e n t i n a l l schools. The classroom resource teachers of the One-year Group students i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r students were h e s i t a n t and o f t e n r e l u c t a n t to s t a r t t h e i r computers without a s s i s t a n c e . Some of the students i n d i c a t e d they had completed the paper a f t e r twenty minutes and needed prompting i n order to remain 56 working f o r the r e q u i r e d time p e r i o d . There was constant d i s c u s s i o n and the noise l e v e l was much high e r than that heard i n the labs of the Three-year Group. The Three-year Group entered the lab and loaded t h e i r word p r o c e s s i n g programs immediately. The students who used M u l t i - S c r i b e spent the i n i t i a l moments desig n i n g t h e i r f i l e s with p e r s o n a l l y p r e f e r r e d fonts and document format. The computer resource teachers of the Three-year Group reported that they r a r e l y d e a l t with student problems concerning the management of the word processor and that they f e l t t h e i r students were able to employ the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the program adequately. Summary The two groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on every e d i t i n g category except Category 3 " S p e l l i n g C o r r e c t i o n " . There was no d i f f e r e n c e between the groups on s u r f a c e e d i t i n g , but the Three-year Group d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l e x i c a l and phrase/sentence e d i t i n g . Both groups had a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e but there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward w r i t i n g . 57 Chapter F i v e Conclusion This study was conducted to determine i f there was a d i f f e r e n c e i n e d i t i n g s k i l l s between those grade-seven students who had three years of experience w i t h keyboarding s k i l l s and a word proc e s s o r and those who had one yea r s ' experience w i t h keyboarding s k i l l s and a word pr o c e s s o r . The study also compared the a t t i t u d e of the students towards w r i t i n g . Before d i s c u s s i n g the r e s u l t s , i t should be r e s t a t e d that the students had r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r w r i t i n g experiences but they d i f f e r e d i n keyboarding s k i l l s and word p r o c e s s o r experience. Any f i n d i n g s do not n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e that one group of students were b e t t e r e d i t o r s or w r i t e r s . Rather, when u s i n g a word p r o c e s s o r there may be a d i f f e r e n c e i n e d i t i n g techniques between those students with experience i n w r i t i n g on the computer and those students who have j u s t begun u s i n g the computer as a w r i t i n g t o o l . 58 The taxonomy put forward i n chapter three i s used as a method of e v a l u a t i n g the r e s u l t s . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study were d i v i d e d i n t o three s e c t i o n s : surface e d i t i n g , l e x i c a l e d i t i n g and sentence/phrase e d i t i n g . D e l e t i n g a typo, making a s p e l l i n g c o r r e c t i o n or pun c t u a t i o n change were c o n s i d e r e d i n the surface l e v e l . The i n s e r t i o n and d e l e t i o n of words were thought of as l e x i c a l e d i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s . The only category considered f o r the sentence/phrase l e v e l was Category 1, " D e l e t i o n of a Sentence". Both the One-year Group and the Three-year Group produced r e s u l t s that showed e d i t i n g at the surface l e v e l was the most f r e q u e n t l y used method. B r i d w e l l (198O) r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s i n her study of students w r i t i n g with pen and paper. In t h i s study the only category that d i d not show a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was i n s p e l l i n g c o r r e c t i o n . The f a c t that t h i s category was not s i g n i f i c a n t supports the f i n d i n g s of L i n e r (1978) and Sommers (1978) when they rep o r t e d that s p e l l i n g c o r r e c t i o n was an e d i t i n g method commonly used by a l l l e v e l s of w r i t e r s . Although two of the i n d i v i d u a l c a t e g o r i e s f o r sur f a c e e d i t i n g i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups, the 59 combined means f a i l e d to show a d i f f e r e n c e when t e s t e d with a t w o - t a i l e d t e s t . This r e s u l t i s i n agreement with those found i n the s t u d i e s of B r i d w e l l (1980), Sommers <19?8) and Morton et a l . (1989). These s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d s u r f a c e l e v e l e d i t i n g as the most commonly used technique i n a l l l e v e l s of w r i t i n g experience. The One-year Group produced an average of 15.21 f o r the category "Deleted a Typo". This was the l a r g e s t mean rep o r t e d f o r any group i n any of the c a t e g o r i e s . The r e s u l t was expected because the students i n the One-year Group would have g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y a p p l y i n g the newly l e a r n e d s k i l l of keyboarding. L e v i n , Boruta, and Vas c o n c e l l o s (1983) found s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . The m a j o r i t y of d e l e t i o n s t h e i r students made i n v o l v e d the use of the del e t e key f o r s i n g l e c h a r a c t e r erasures d u r i n g the entry of new t e x t . L e v i n , Boruta, and V a s c o n c e l l o s (1983) d i d not re p o r t the l e v e l of experience t h e i r students had wit h keyboarding. The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found i n t h i s study suggests that keyboarding s k i l l s and word p r o c e s s o r experience may a f f e c t the students' use of the de l e t e key as the s i n g l e most used e d i t i n g technique. The Three-year Group showed a 60 decrease i n the use of the d e l e t e key and t h i s may be a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r keyboarding a b i l i t i e s . This study's r e s u l t s f o r the l e x i c a l l e v e l i n d i c a t e that the Three-year Group developed an a b i l i t y to e d i t i n the l e x i c a l l e v e l more than the One-year Group. The experienced computer w r i t e r s seem to d i s p l a y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that the l i t e r a t u r e equates w i t h experienced w r i t e r s . H i l l o c k s (1980) p o i n t s out i n h i s review that "we know that a d d i t i o n of words i s a prominent r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g y , used by C a l k i n s t h i r d - g r a d e i n t e r a c t i n g r e v i s e r s , B r i d w e l l ' s s e n i o r s , and Sommers's s k i l l e d writers".(p. 8 7 ) S t a l l a r d (1974) furthermore r e p o r t e d that the more experienced w r i t e r s ' most prominent r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g y was the a d d i t i o n and d e l e t i o n of words. Research suggests that e d i t i n g i n the l e x i c a l l e v e l i s con s i d e r e d developmentally more s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n comparison to the surface l e v e l . The word processor, however, has made the i n s e r t i o n and d e l e t i o n of words e a s i e r . The f a c t that the Three-year Group appear to be more p r o f i c i e n t at the l e x i c a l l e v e l may be a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r word p r o c e s s i n g a b i l i t y . F u r t h e r support can 61 be found i n the r e s u l t s of the i n d i v i d u a l category of B u i l t - i n Commands. The Three-year Group accessed the b u i l t - i n commands an average of 6.15 times i n comparison to the 0.5 recorded by the One-year Group. The power of the word p r o c e s s o r appears to give the experienced u s e r g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y and ease i n e d i t i n g i n the l e x i c a l l e v e l . F u r t h e r evidence that p r o f i c i e n t command of the word p r o c e s s o r has g i v e n experienced users g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y to e d i t i n v a r i o u s l e v e l s can be found i n the r e s u l t s f o r the sentence/phrase l e v e l . B r i d w e l l (1980) and S t a l l a r d (1974), found that t h e i r advanced w r i t e r s made more phrase/sentence l e v e l changes than t h e i r b a s i c w r i t e r s . B r i d w e l l (1980) r e p o r t e d that r e v i s i o n s at the sentence l e v e l occurred 7.8 per cent of the time i n a l l three stages of her study. Once again the a b i l i t y of the word p r o c e s s o r to make the d e l e t i o n or a d d i t i o n of lo n g passages easy, has a f f e c t e d the e d i t i n g of experienced computer w r i t e r s . The study d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between phrase and sentence i n order to accommodate the o b s e r v a t i o n a l s k i l l l e v e l s of the student observers. The s t a t i s t i c a l 62 r e s u l t s , however, do i n d i c a t e that the experienced computer w r i t e r s have begun to e d i t at l e a s t at the phrase l e v e l . Furthermore, the experienced computer w r i t e r u t i l i z e s an evenly balanced s t y l e of e d i t i n g ( s u r f a c e , l e x i c a l , phrase/sentence) i n comparison to the one year students. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study are i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n to Gerlach's study (1987). She found "the t y p i n g t u t o r i a l group d i d not make s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater number of r e v i s i o n s i n any category (surface, l e x i c a l , phrase, clause, sentence, multi-sentence, and te x t ) than the no-t y p i n g group. Although the students i n Gerlach's study used the same keyboarding program as was used i n t h i s study (Microtvpe. The Wonderful World Of Paws), her students had only the eighteen lessons before being t e s t e d . The Three-year Group i n t h i s study had r e c e i v e d the same eighteen lessons f o r three consecutive years. The l e n g t h of time that Gerlach allowed f o r her students to become comfortable and capable with both keyboarding and word p r o c e s s i n g may have been i n s u f f i c i e n t . This study demonstrated that a d i f f e r e n c e does e x i s t i n the l e x i c a l and, p o s s i b l y the sentence l e v e l s of r e v i s i o n s . 63 Students' A t t i t u d e s Summary The a t t i t u d e survey given to the students d i d not co n t a i n any references to computers. This vas done to ensure that the students' a t t i t u d e vas not a f f e c t e d by t h e i r o p i n i o n about computers as reported by Robinson-S t a v e l y and Cooper (1990). This may have been a f a c t o r i n the r e s u l t s r e c e i v e d . The Three-year Group had been doing a m a j o r i t y of t h e i r v r i t i n g on the computer and i t vas hypothesized that they vould have a b e t t e r a t t i t u d e . There vas no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found. Hovever the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s shoved that both groups vere p o s i t i v e tovards v r i t i n g . L i m i t a t i o n s Formal g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y i s reserved to the d i s t r i c t and the seventh-grade students. It i s assumed that these students represent average seventh-grade students throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. This study has some l i m i t a t i o n s . The i n i t i a l composing process, v h i c h i n c l u d e s e d i t i n g , vas observed and not the remaining stages of the v r i t i n g process. The 64 e d i t i n g p a t t e r n s may a l t e r when the student f o l l o w s the paper to the p u b l i s h e d stage. Secondly, t h i s study i n c l u d e d only surface e d i t i n g , l e x i c a l e d i t i n g , and l i m i t e d observations of the sentence/phrase l e v e l s . It d i d not take i n t o account any e d i t i n g that may have taken p l a c e at the m u l t i -sentence or text l e v e l s . Observations that i n c l u d e a l l l e v e l s of e d i t i n g may produce f u r t h e r r e s u l t s concerning the e d i t i n g techniques of experienced computer w r i t e r s . There are f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n s imposed upon t h i s study by the design. The observers were not r e q u i r e d to i n d i c a t e the i n f o r m a t i o n that was added, d e l e t e d or r e p l a c e d from the students' paper. This i n f o r m a t i o n may be h e l p f u l i n determining the exact e d i t i n g techniques students use when composing on a computer. Furthermore, the s p e c i f i c nature of the b u i l t - i n commands used by the students was not a s c e r t a i n e d . The r e s u l t s of a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n would help c l a r i f y what powers of the word processor students are usi n g . 65 Conclusions This study has shown that when students are given keyboard t r a i n i n g over a three-year p e r i o d and time to become accustomed to a vord processor they appear to perform more s o p h i s t i c a t e d forms of e d i t i n g than students with a s i n g l e years' experience. As the computer becomes more widely used as a t o o l f o r w r i t i n g , educators should be aware of these f a c t o r s . Students must f e e l c o n f i d e n t i n manipulating t h i s new t e c h n o l o g i c a l w r i t i n g t o o l before they can b e n e f i t from i t s a b i l i t i e s . The word proc e s s o r has made e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g e a s i e r f o r w r i t e r s . However, the r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest that adequate experience with both keyboarding and word p r o c e s s i n g may be necessary before any s i g n i f i c a n t b e n e f i t s are noted. The Three-year Group students had three years experience with both these s k i l l s and the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that the time p e r i o d has b e n e f i t t e d the students. This study (1989), i n supports the f i n d i n g s of Morton et a l . that word p r o c e s s i n g appears to f a c i l i t a t e 66 the r e v i s i o n aspects of w r i t i n g . The experienced students are not as concerned with the mechanics of g e t t i n g the ideas down and f e e l more comfortable experimenting (Dacus 1983). As the computer becomes more widely used as a t o o l f o r w r i t i n g , educators should be aware of these f a c t o r s . Recommendations Previous s t u d i e s recommended that keyboarding and constant use of word processors begin around the grade-f i v e l e v e l . Research has shown that students at the f i f t h - g r a d e l e v e l are able to manipulate the keys w i t h some p r o f i c i e n c y (Morrison, 1986; Hoe, L., Sommers, B. 1987; Grace, 1989) and with continued p r a c t i c e on a word proce s s o r t h e i r a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e the computer as a w r i t i n g t o o l w i l l improve. The word p r o c e s s o r does not teach students to become b e t t e r w r i t e r s but provides a means to e f f e c t changes more e a s i l y . It i s recommended that word p r o c e s s i n g not replace w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . Teachers need to continue to teach the w r i t i n g process, guide w r i t i n g of 67 compositions and provide feedback f o r r e v i s i o n ( B a l a j t h y , 1988). F u r t h e r Studies A r e p l i c a t i o n of t h i s study with a longer time p e r i o d to i n c l u d e a l l l e v e l s of the w r i t i n g process would produce a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o the e d i t i n g and r e v i s i o n s k i l l s of experienced computer w r i t e r s . I n v e s t i g a t i n g the e d i t i n g techniques that students use when they are r e v i s i n g a p r e v i o u s l y composed paper, may r e v e a l a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n . A l o n g i t u d i n a l study that observed students e d i t i n g s k i l l s from f o u r t h grade to t w e l f t h grade would help c l a r i f y the issue of developmental l e v e l s . F i n a l l y , a study that looked at the q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g that experienced computer w r i t e r s produce would give an i n s i g h t i n t o the b e n e f i t s of w r i t i n g on the computer. 68 References Adams, C. (1985). Composing with computers. Computers  i n Education, November, 18-20. B a l a j t h y , E. (1988). Keyboarding, language a r t s , and the elementary school c h i l d . The Computing Teacher. (2), 40-43. Bartholome, L. W". (1986). Teach keyboarding to elementary school students. N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of  Laboratory Schools J o u r n a l ? A p r i l , 22-2? Bean, H.C. (1983), Computerized word p r o c e s s i n g as an a i d to r e v i s i o n . College Composition and  Communication, 34 7 146-148. Boles, R. , Jensen, C. ( 1984, A p r i l ) . Kids, computers,  and keyboarding. P r e s e n t a t i o n at Northwest C o u n c i l f o r Computer Education, Por t l a n d , OR. B r i d w e l l , L.S . O 9 8 0 ) . R e v i s i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n t w e l f t h grade students' t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h . 14(3), 197-222. B r i t t e n , B. M. (1988). The e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n on keyboarding s k i l l s i n grade 2. E d u c a t i o n a l Technology. February, 34-37. Ca l k i n s , L.M. (1987). Children's r e w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h . (14) 331-341. 69 Cameron, J. ( 1988). Keyboarding. •word p r o c e s s i n g and the  v r i t i n g p rocess: an elementary teacher's guide. Cameron P u b l i c a t i o n s , Vancouver, B.C. I l l — V I I . Cameron, J. (1986). Keyboarding i n the elementary school. Computers i n Education. 2., 32-35. Choate, J. (1982). CNN forum: Vord p r o c e s s i n g - hov v i l l i t shape the student as a v r i t e r ? Classroom Computer  Nevs. 3(2). 24-27; 74-76. C o l l i e r , R. M. (1983). The vord p r o c e s s o r and r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . College Composition and Communication T 2JL, 149-155. C o l l i n s , A. (1984). Learning to read and v r i t e v i t h  personalcomputers. (Reading Education Report No. 42), Cambridge: B o l t , Beraneck and Nevman. C o l l i s , B. A. (1988). Computers, curriculum, and vho l e - c l a s s i n s t r u c t i o n : i s s u e s and ideas. Vadsvorth P u b l i s h i n g Company, Belmont, C a l i f . Dacus, J. (1983). Time bomb i n educa t i o n a l computing: teaching keyboarding to c h i l d r e n . E d u c a t i o n a l  Computing. 12, 50-51. Daiute, C. < 1981 >. The computer i n the v r i t i n g c l a s s :  problems and p o t e n t i a l s , P r e s e n t a t i o n at American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n . 70 Daiute, C. (1982). Vord processing, can i t make even good w r i t e r s b e t t e r ? . E l e c t r o n i c Learning. 2., 29-31. Daiute, C. <1983>. W r i t i n g , c r e a t i v i t y and change. ChildhoodEducation. 53., 227-231. Daiute, C. (1984). Rewriting. R e v i s i n g , and Reconving. Paper presented at the meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n . Daiute, C. (1985), W r i t i n g and computers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Daiute, C. (1986). Issues i n u s i n g computers to s o c i a l i z e the w r i t i n g process. E d u c a t i o n a l Computing  Teachers Jou r n a l . 22., 41-45. Didatech Inc. (1988). A l l the Right Type. Burnaby, B.C. Duling, R. (1985). Word processors and student w r i t i n g : a study of t h e i r impact on r e v i s i o n , and q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g . Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , (ERIC Document, ED 252 354). Flower, L. and Hayes, J.R. < 1981). A c o g n i t i v e process theory of w r i t i n g . College Composition and  Communication. 32, 365-387. Gerlach, G. J. (1987). The e f f e c t of ty p i n g s k i l l on  usi n g a word processor f o r composition. American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , ( ERIC ED 237 987). 71 Grace, B. (1989) Where, when, and hov to teach keyboarding. P u b l i s h e d master's t h e s i s , Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , B r i t i s h Columbia. Green, J.O. (1984). Computers, k i d s and w r i t i n g : An int e r v i e w with Donald B. Graves. Classroom Computer  Learning. JL i S l , 21-23. H a r r i s , J. (1985). Student w r i t e r s and word p r o c e s s i n g : a p r e l i m i n a r y e v a l u a t i o n . College Composition and Communication. 3li (2) . 323-330. Headley, P. L. (1983). Keyboarding i n s t r u c t i o n i n elementary school. Business Education Forum. 45 , 18-19. H i l l o c k s , G. (1986). Research on w r i t t e n composition:  new d i r e c t i o n s f o r w r i t i n g . Urbana, IL, ERIC. Hoe, L., Summers, B. (1987). Elementary keyboarding and  your w r i t i n g program. Vancouver School Board, 1-54. J e r o s k i , S. F. (1982). Competence i n w r i t t e n expression; i n t e r a c t i o n s between i n s t r u c t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s among j u n i o r h i g h school students. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Kahn, J. (1987). Emergent w r i t e r s u s i n g word p r o c e s s i n g : making i t e a s i e r and what i t means. I n t e r f a c e . (1). 15-19. 72 Kahn, J . , Freyd, P. (1990). Touch t y p i n g f o r young c h i l d r e n : help or hindrance. E d u c a t i o n a l Technology, 2P_, 41-45. Kane, J.H.(1983). Computers f o r composing. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Montreal, Ontario. (ERIC Document, ED 230 978) Kaser, K. J. (1984). Keyboarding course f o r k-6. Business Education Forum. 39, 16-19. Kleiman, G., and Humphrey, M. (1982) Word p r o c e s s i n g i n the classroom. Compute. 22. 96-99. King, M.L. (1978). Research i n composition: a need f o r a theory. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h . 12, 193-202. K i s n e r , K. (1984). Keyboarding-a must i n tomorrow's world. Computing Teacher, 11. 21-22. Kurth, L., Kurth, R. A. (1987). A comparison of w r i t i n g  i n s t r u c t i o n u s i n g word processing, word p r o c e s s i n g with v o i c e s y n t h e s i s , and no word p r o c e s s i n g i n kin d e r g a r t e n and grade one. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D.C. Kurth, R. A., Stromberg, L . J . (1984). Using word p r o c e s s i n g i n composition i n s t r u c t i o n . (ERIC Document, ED 251 850 , V o l . 19). 73 Kurth, R.J. (1987). Using vord p r o c e s s i n g to enhance r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s during student w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . E d u c a t i o n a l Technology. 1, 23-32. LaBarre, J. L., Zahn, D. K. (1983). Keyboarding. Wisconsin State Dept. of P u b l i c , (ERIC Document ED 264 3 4 D . L a r t e r , S. (1987) W r i t i n g with microcomputers i n the elementary grades: process, r o l e s , a t t i t u d e s , and  products. Ontario I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education, Toronto, Ontario. Leuhrmann, A. (1984). The best way to teach computer l i t e r a c y . E l e c t r o n i c Learning. A 37-41. L e v i n , J.A., Boruta, M.J. (1983). W r i t i n g with computers i n classrooms: "You get e x a c t l y the r i g h t amount of spacer 1 1. Theory i n t o P r a c t i c e . 22. 291-295. L e v i n , J.A., Boruta, M.J., Vasc o n c e l l o s , M.T. (1983). Microcomputer- based environments f o r w r i t i n g : a . w r i t e r s a s s i s t a n t . In Classroom computers and co g n i t i v e science, ed. A.C. Wilkinson, New York, 219-232. McClendon, S. L. (1989). F i r s t grade s p e l l i n g success with keyboarding. The Computing Teacher. 47, 35-36. Marcus, S. (1987). Computers and e n g l i s h : Future tense ... f u t u r e p e r f e c t . E n g l i s h Journal, 7_6_(5), 84-87. 74 Morrison, P. (1986). P r e p a r i n g business teachers to teach keyboarding to elementary school students. Business Education Forum. 25-29. Morton, L.L., Lindsay, P.H. and Roche (1989). Word p r o c e s s i n g e f f e c t s on w r i t i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y at elementary and j u n i o r h i g h school l e v e l s The A l b e r t a Journal of Ed u c a t i o n a l Research. 25121, 145-163. N a t i o n a l Assessment of Edu c a t i o n a l Progress. (1977). W r i t e / r e w r i t e : An assessment of r e v i s i o n s k i l l s ; S e l e c t e d r e s u l t s from the second n a t i o n a l assessment of w r i t i n g . Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States. Newman J. M. (1984). Language l e a r n i n g and computers. Language A r t s . 61(5). 494-497. O'Brien, P. (1984). Using microcomputers i n the w r i t i n g c l a s s . The Computing Teacher. May, 20-21. Palmer, A., Dowd, T.and James, K. (1984). Changing teacher and student a t t i t u d e s through word pr o c e s s i n g . The Computing Teacher. 11 (g). 20-21 Rauch, V. C , Yanke, P. B. ( 1982). Keyboarding i n kin d e r g a r t e n - i s i t elementary?. Business Education  Forum, 19-20. Robinson-Stavely, K., Cooper, J. (1990). The use of computers f o r w r i t i n g : e f f e c t s on an e n g l i s h composition c l a s s . J o urnal of E d u c a t i o n a l Computing Research. 6(1), 41-48. Schmidt, J. B. (1983). Keyboarding: the s t a t e of the a r t . V i r g i n i a P o l y t e c h n i c I n s t i t u t e , (ERIC Document ED 237 123). Schwartz, H. (1984). Teaching w r i t i n g w i t h computer a i d s . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 1L6_ , 239-247. Sommers, N.I. (1978). R e v i s i o n i n the composing p r o c e s s : A case study of c o l l e g e freshman and experienced w r i t e r s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 23., 53-74. Southern P u b l i s h i n g Co. (1987). Microtvpe. The Wonderful World Of Paws. C i n c i n n a t i , OH. S t a l l a r d , , C . K. (1974). An a n a l y s i s of the w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r of good students. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h . 8_ , 206-218 Stewart, J . , and Jones, B. W. (1983). Keyboarding i n s t r u c t i o n : elementary school options. Business E d u c a t i o n Forum. 11-12. S u t t l e s , A.L. (1983). Computers and w r i t e r s : Contemporary r e s e a r c h and i n n o v a t i v e programs. Computer Reading and Language A r t s . 1(1). 33-37 Walpole, R.E. (1983). Elementary S t a t i s t i c a l Concents. 2nd E d i t i o n . Macmillan, New York. 76 Warwood, B.; Hartman, V.; Hauwiller, J . ; and Taylor, S.<1985). A research study to determine the e f f e c t s of e a r l v keyboard use upon student development i n o c c u p a t i o n a l keyboarding. F i n a l Report of Research, State of Montana , (ERIC Document ED 258114). Wetzel, K. (1985). Keyboarding s k i l l s : elementary, my dear teacher. College Composition and Communication. 15-19. Wetzel, K. (1987). A survey of elementary students' a t t i t u d e s toward word pro c e s s i n g . The W r i t i n g Notebook, Mendocino, C a l i f . 7-8. Woodruff, E., B e r e i t e r , C , Scardamalia, M. (1982). On the road to computer a s s i s t e d compositions. Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l Technology Systems. 10(2). 133-148. Appendix 1 77 OPINIONS ABOUT TOTTING People have different feelings about writing. We are interested i n your opinions. How much do vou agree with each of the following statements? (Remember, there are no "correct" answers.) For each of the following statements, c i r c l e the l e t t e r which i s closest to vour opinion. Strongly Can't Strongly Agree Agree Decide Disagree Disagree 1. It's fun to send l e t t e r s to A B C D E my friends. 2. I only write something when A B C D E I have to. 3. Almost anything i s more fun A B C D E than writing. 4. Sometimes, when I'm upset, A B C D E i t helps to put my feelings down on paper. 5. I fee l good when I f i n i s h a A B C D E piece of writing. 6. Writing a diary or a journal A B C D E is a waste of time. 7. The most interesting a c t i v i t i e s A B C D E I do i n my school classes involve writing. 8. Writing stories and reports A B C D E is usually boring. 9. Sometimes i t ' s fun to write A B C D E something just for myself and not show i t to anyone. 10. I never enjoy writing A B C D E anything. Appendix 2 Observational Data Recording Sheet Student deleted a sentence Student cor r e c t e d a simple typo with the delte key Student made a s p e l l i n g c o r r e c t i o n Student made a punctuation change Student i n s e r t e d a new word Student deleted a word Student moved cursor Student used b u i l t - i n commands Student stopped typing and paused f o r more than 30 seconds Student was typing c o n t i n u a l l y f o r 30 seconds  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055100/manifest

Comment

Related Items