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 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 . 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