This article reports the results of a study testing whether any of seventeen personal attributes related to the quality of documents university undergraduates wrote by hand and on the computer. Chi-square analysis showed significant differences for age, class, and word processing and keyboarding experience. The researchers concluded that some attributes do relate to computer writing quality and suggest further study to benefit computer writers and computer writing curriculum and instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SpauldingC. L. and LakeD., Interactive Effects of Computer Network and Student Characteristics on Students' of Writing and Collaborating, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, ERIC ED 329 966, April 3–7, 1991.
2.
VarnerI. I. and GroggP. M., Microcomputers and the Writing Process, The Journal of Business Communication, 25: 3, pp. 69–78, 1988.
3.
PearceC. and BarkerR. T., A Comparison of Business Communication Quality between Computer Written and Handwritten Samples, The Journal of Business Communication, 18: 2, pp. 141–151, 1991.
4.
MarkelM., Behaviors, Attitudes, and Outcomes: A Study of Word Processing and Writing Quality among Experienced Word-processing Students, Computers and Composition, 11: 1, pp. 49–58, 1994.
5.
KuiperS., Impact of Computer-user Interface on Document Quality, Journal of Business Communication, 31: 2, pp. 125–135, 1994.
6.
SilverN. W., The Effect of Word Processing on the Quality of Writing and Self-esteem of Secondary School English-as-Second-Language Students: Writing Without Censure, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9: 2, pp. 265–283, 1993.
7.
SnyderI., The Impact of Computers on Students' Writing: A Comparative Study of the Effects of Pens and Word Processors on Writing Context, Process and Product, Australian Journal of Education, 37: 1, pp. 5–25, 1993.
8.
GrejdaG. F. and HannafinM. J., Effects of Word Processing on Sixth Graders' Holistic Writing and Revisions, Journal of Educational Research, 85: 3, pp. 144–149, 1992.
9.
OwstonR. D., The Effects of Word Processing on Students' Writing Quality and Revision Strategies, Research in the Teaching of English, 26: 3, pp. 249–276, 1992.
10.
JoyR. O., Providing a Flexible Course in Writing Reports with the Use of the Computer Within a Traditional University College of Business, The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 54: 2, pp. 24–28, 1991.
11.
BernhardtS. A.EdwardsP., and WojahnP., Teaching College Composition with Computers: A Timed Observation Study, Written Communication, 7: 3, pp. 342–374, 1990.
12.
BernhardtS. A.EdwardsP., and WojahnP., Teaching College Composition with Computers, Written Communications, 6: 1, pp. 108–133, 1989.
13.
FaigleyL., Judging Writing, Judging Selves, College Composition and Communication, 40: 4, pp. 395–412, 1989.
14.
TeichmanM. and PorisM., Initial Effects of Word Processing on Writing Quality and Writing Anxiety in Freshman Writers, Computers and the Humanities, 23: 2, pp. 93–103, 1989.
15.
McCallisterC. and LouthR. R., The Effect of Word Processing on the Quality of Basic Writers' Revisions, Research in the Teaching of English, 22: 4, pp. 417–427, 1988.
16.
KurthR. J., Word Processing and Composition Revision Strategies, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., ERIC ED 285 135, April 1987.
17.
DaltonD. W. and WatsonJ. F., Word Processing and the Writing Process: Enhancement or Distraction? paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Las Vegas, Nevada, ERIC ED 267 763, January 14–21, 1986.
18.
DaiuteC., Physical and Cognitive Factors in Revising: Insights from Studies with Computers, Research in the Teaching of English, 20: 2, pp. 141–159, 1986.
19.
HaasC. and HayesJ. R., Pen and Paper vs. the Machine: Writers Composing in Hard Copy and Computer Conditions, CDC Technical Report No. 16, Communication Design Center, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, ERIC ED 265 563, 1986.
20.
SterkelK. S.JohnsonM. I., and SjogrenD. D., Textual Analysis with Computers to Improve the Writing Skills of Business Communication Students, The Journal of Business Communication, 23: 1, pp. 43–61, 1986.
21.
EtchisonC., A Comparative Study of the Quality and Syntax of Compositions by First Year College Students Using Handwriting and Word Processing, Glenville State College, Glenville, West Virginia, ERIC ED 282 215, 1985.
22.
PurvesA. C., Research on Written Composition: A Response to Hillock's Report, Research in the Teaching of English, 22: 1, pp. 104–108, 1988.
23.
HillocksG.Jr., Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching, ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English, Urbana, Illinois, 1986.
24.
OlneyR. J., The Impact of Computer Technology on the Composition of Written Business Communication, Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 29: 1, pp. 3–14, 1987.
25.
MyersM., A Procedure for Writing Assessment and Holistic Scoring, ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois, 1980.
26.
BarkerR. T., The Power of Immediacy and Encouragement in the Communication Classroom, The Virginia Business Education Journal, 16: 1, pp. 7–10, 1995.
