I finished reading through the meta-analysis study I referenced in my last blog entry. I’d like to focus on the quality analysis section on page 16. As I said in my last post, quantity is one thing: Anybody can be taught to write more. What’s most important and perpetually most challenging for students is to improve the quality of their writing. The study found that there was a positive correlation between writing quality and the use of word processing software. Eleven out of the fifteen studies analyzed showed an overall higher quality of writing from those students who used word processors versus those students who used a writing instrument and paper.
I’ve come to learn that making sense of the data is more important than collecting the data, so I found this part particularly interesting:
These analyses indicated that student supports (i.e., keyboard training, technical assistance, teacher feedback, and peer editing) were not significant factors affecting the quality of student writing. Similarly, the study characteristics (i.e., type of publication, employment of random assignment, employment of pre-post design, single vs. multiple classroom sampling, length of study, etc.) were not related to the effect of word processing on the quality of student writing. However, when examining student characteristics (i.e., keyboard experience prior to the study, student achievement level, school setting, and grade level), a statistically significant relationship was detected between grade level and quality of writing: as school level increased, the magnitude of the effect size increased.
The study offered no explanation for why the quality of writing improved – generally speaking – for students who used word processors. Based on the final point made above, however, I began to think of some possibilities.
Students spend a significant amount of their elementary years learning to read. They don’t, on average, read to learn until the third grade. Conversely, students begin writing the simplest of sentences in kindergarten. A common saying amongst English teachers is “students who write well, read well.” Well, if a student spends most of his time in elementary school learning the basics of reading, it would stand to reason that, regardless of the tool, her writing will probably be very basic and very formulaic. Also, there will probably be many errors in grammar, capitalization, and punctuation.
As students grow and learn, reading more and writing more, the chances are great that they will have learned a fair amount of grammar and punctuation rules. While students know these rules, it does not necessarily mean they will take the time to apply them, especially when using pencil or pen and paper to compose their writing. It is immeasurably more difficult and time consuming to edit words when they are written in ink or even pencil than it is to do so when they are typed on a computer. Within this paragraph alone, I must have moved words, re-worded sentences, and changed marks of punctuation at least ten times. I made most of these changes with a few clicks of a variety of buttons. Making the same changes with pencil or pen and paper would take far longer and likely leave the paper looking like an indecipherable mess.
I made the assertion last time that students, in general, want their work to be visually appealing, especially when it is easy for them to make it so. Thinking back on the two items we read about the mind, especially the Norman piece, it seems to me that word processing offers what pencil and paper were never able to: functionality and appealing design.
I’ve come to learn that making sense of the data is more important than collecting the data, so I found this part particularly interesting:
These analyses indicated that student supports (i.e., keyboard training, technical assistance, teacher feedback, and peer editing) were not significant factors affecting the quality of student writing. Similarly, the study characteristics (i.e., type of publication, employment of random assignment, employment of pre-post design, single vs. multiple classroom sampling, length of study, etc.) were not related to the effect of word processing on the quality of student writing. However, when examining student characteristics (i.e., keyboard experience prior to the study, student achievement level, school setting, and grade level), a statistically significant relationship was detected between grade level and quality of writing: as school level increased, the magnitude of the effect size increased.
The study offered no explanation for why the quality of writing improved – generally speaking – for students who used word processors. Based on the final point made above, however, I began to think of some possibilities.
Students spend a significant amount of their elementary years learning to read. They don’t, on average, read to learn until the third grade. Conversely, students begin writing the simplest of sentences in kindergarten. A common saying amongst English teachers is “students who write well, read well.” Well, if a student spends most of his time in elementary school learning the basics of reading, it would stand to reason that, regardless of the tool, her writing will probably be very basic and very formulaic. Also, there will probably be many errors in grammar, capitalization, and punctuation.
As students grow and learn, reading more and writing more, the chances are great that they will have learned a fair amount of grammar and punctuation rules. While students know these rules, it does not necessarily mean they will take the time to apply them, especially when using pencil or pen and paper to compose their writing. It is immeasurably more difficult and time consuming to edit words when they are written in ink or even pencil than it is to do so when they are typed on a computer. Within this paragraph alone, I must have moved words, re-worded sentences, and changed marks of punctuation at least ten times. I made most of these changes with a few clicks of a variety of buttons. Making the same changes with pencil or pen and paper would take far longer and likely leave the paper looking like an indecipherable mess.
I made the assertion last time that students, in general, want their work to be visually appealing, especially when it is easy for them to make it so. Thinking back on the two items we read about the mind, especially the Norman piece, it seems to me that word processing offers what pencil and paper were never able to: functionality and appealing design.
Of course, I could be entirely wrong.
4 comments:
Richard, I couldn't agree more with you. I have always enjoyed writing. As a child, I loved to put paper and pencil thoughts, stories, and ideas down on paper. Now, as an adult, I find myself going straight to the computer. Word processing programs afford an ease that traditional paper and pencil does not. This is not to say that I rely on it for grammar and spelling rules; I don't. Like you, I just find it much easier to move text around, cut and paste, etc. when revising my writing.
In relation to this topic, I did find a thesis paper on the impact of word processing on middle school students: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/er
icdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b
/80/26/00/14.pdf.
Although lengthy, there are some interesting things to note. The author's research showed that "the time it took to compose on the computer far exceeded that of composition using paper and pencil" (p. 15). The author backs this up with statements regarding actual teaching of computer and keyboarding concepts.
Yes! I can't tell you how many times I assign a pencil-and-paper writing assignment to my students and it's as painful as scratching nails against the blackboard to have them revise their work. Computers do offer a certain ease of editing, as well as the option to eliminate large sections of text without disturbing the visual appearance of the piece as a whole.
This reminds me of the poetry unit I am working on with my fourth-graders. I tell them, "quality is better than quantity" and they look at me cross-eyed. I have to explain that I'm looking for word choice, thoughtfulness and quality of effort over the number of poems they write. I now wonder, if I had made all students use a computer to type poems, would they take a little more time to care about the quality?
As for myself, I am constantly moving, cutting, and pasting just like most. It's convenient and fast, which takes into account the immediate needs of this "I want it now" society!
Interesting connection between the Norman article and the concept of word processing being more "visually" appealing. As I know we've mentioned before,there is no getting past the power visual aspects have over this generation of students. I agree with both Crystal and Laine, that I would be lost without my computer and the ability to quickly edit text. I am an avid scrapbooker and I even type all my journaling text on the computer. To me, it is more "visually appealing."
On any given assignment, given the same content, which would stand out more-a paper written in pen and pencil, a word-processed paper, or a word processed paper with images, color and a clever mix of font size, texture, and page design? I happened to be listening to something on tv yesterday as I picked up cast off candy wrappers and Easter grass. They were discussing the continued popularity of the Bible in the publishing industry. Wondering how to appeal more to teenage girls they were comparing the "visual appeal" of the Bible to a handful of popular teen magazines. The result--a Bible-based glossy mag full of images and "wow" factors to win over the teenage girl.
Visual literacy has been identified as a 21st century skill ( http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/vislit.htm ), propagating the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Ann
Post a Comment