This study examined the relationship between computer-user interface (character
based or graphical) and the quality of written documents. Students were randomly
assigned to one of two business communication labs, Macintosh or IBM. Both
groups received identical lectures on business communication principles and
practices. T-test analyses of two documents produced during the course compared
the groups on four document criteria: content, structure, mechanics, and format.
After six weeks of business communication instruction, including three 50-minute
class periods of instruction on their respective computers and software, IBM users
excelled on the criteria of mechanics (as hypothesized) and format (contrary to the
hypothesis). After an additional five weeks of business communication instruction
and use of their respective computer systems, the two groups demonstrated no
significant differences on any of the criteria. The findings challenge Halio's claims
for the superiority of character-based interface.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Apple or IBM?: Huge merger poses $500 million decision (1988 , July). Australian Accountant, pp. 33-34.
2.
Bean, J.C. (1983). Computerized word-processing as an aid to revision . College Composition and Communication, 34, 146-148.
3.
Bridwell, L.S., Nancarrow, P.R., & Ross, D. (1984). The writing process and the writing machine: Current research on word processors relevant to the teaching of composition. In R. Breach & L. S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 381-398). New York: The Guilford Press.
4.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
5.
Collier, R.M. (1983). The word processor and revision strategies. College Composition and Communication, 34, 149-155.
6.
Cyganowski, C.K. (1990). The computer classroom and collaborative learning: The impact on student writers. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community; Teaching composition in the twenty-first century (pp. 68-88). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook Publishers.
7.
Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English , 20, 141-159.
8.
Grover, R. (1990, November). Apple of the corporate eye. Canadian Datasystems, pp. 22-24.
9.
Halio, M.P. (1990). Student writing: Can the machine maim the message ? Academic Computing, 4(4), 16-19, 45.
10.
Harris, J. (1985). Student writers and word processing; A preliminary evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36, 323-330.
11.
Hawisher, G.E. (1987). The effects of word processing on the revision strategies of college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 145-159.
12.
Hawisher, G.E., & Selfe, C.L. (1991). The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication, 42, 55-64.
13.
Lutz, J.A. (1987). A study of professional and experienced writers revising and editing at the computer and with pen and paper. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 398-421.
14.
McAllister, C., & Louth, R. (1988). The effect of word processing on the quality of basic writers' revisions. Research in the Teaching of English , 22, 417-427.
15.
Munter, M. (1986). Using the computer in business communication courses . The Journal of Business Communication, 23(1), 31-42.
16.
Pearce, C.G., & Barker, R.T. (1991). A comparison of business communication quality between computer written and handwritten samples. The Journal of Business Communication, 28, 141-151.
17.
Penrose, J.M., Bowman, J.P., & Flatley, M.E. (1987). The impact of microcomputers on ABC with recommendations for teaching, writing, and research. The Journal of Business Communication, 24(4), 79-91.
18.
Renshaw, D.A., Supnick, R.M., & Yaeger, J.A. (1990, November). The effect of Macintosh and MS-DOS computer systems on student writing. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication, San Antonio, TX.
19.
Robinson-Staveley, K., & Cooper, J. (1990). The use of computers for writing: Effects on an English composition class. Journal of Educational ComputingResearch , 6, 41-48.
20.
Roblyer, M.D., Castine, W.H., & King, F.J. (1988). Assessing the impact of computer-based instruction, a review of recent research. Computers in the Schools, 5(3/4), 11-149.
21.
Rodrigues, D. (1985). Computers and basic writers. College Composition and Communication, 36, 336-339.
22.
Schroeder, E.J., & Boe, J. (1990). Minimalism, populism, and attitude transformation: Approaches to teaching writing in computer classrooms. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community: Taching composition in the twenty-first century (pp. 28-46). Portsmouth, NH : Boynton/Cook Publishers.
23.
Varner, I.I., & Grogg, P.M. (1988). Microcomputers and the writing process. The Journal of Business Communication, 25(3), 69-78.
24.
Wedell, A.J., & Allerheiligen, R. (1991). Computer assisted writing instruction: Is it effective? The Journal of Business Communication , 28, 131-140.
25.
Williamson, M.M., & Pence, P. (1989). Word processing and student writers. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design (pp. 93-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
26.
Willinsky, J. (1989). When university students word process their assignments . Computers in the Schools, 6(1/2), 83-96.
