Differences between letters of at-risk college freshmen written by hand and those composed on a microcomputer using a word processor were examined. The subjects spent significantly more time and undertook substantially more editing when composing letters on a microcomputer. Also, editing through deletions and/or insertions was significantly related to quality of letter. However, the mean number of words written per unit of time spent completing a letter was substantially higher for subjects' handwritten letters, while judges' holistic evaluations of letter quality did not differ significantly between the two production modes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Assessment of Educational Progress, Writing Achievement, 1969–79: Results from the Third National Writing Assessment, Volume I. 17-Year-Olds (Report No. 10-W-01), National Assessment of Educational Progress, Denver, 1980.
2.
BurnsH., Recollections of First-Generation Computer-Assisted Prewriting, in The Computer in Composition Instruction: A Writer's Tool, WreschB. (ed.), National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois, 1984.
3.
BurnsH. and CulpG. H., Stimulating Invention in English Composition through Computer-Assisted Instruction, Educational Technology, 20, pp. 5–10, 1980. 32–39, 1987.
4.
KempF., The User-Friendly Fallacy, College Composition and Communication, 38, pp. 32–39, 1987.
5.
SchwartzH., Teaching Writing with Computer Aids, College English, 46, pp. 239–247, 1983.
6.
CainE. J., The Challenge of Technology: Educating the Exceptional Child for the World of Tomorrow, Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, pp. 239–241, 1984.
7.
BridwellL. A.NancarrowP. R., and RossD., The Writing Process and the Writing Machine: Current Research on Word Processors Relevant to the Teaching of Composition, in New Directions in Composition Research, BeachR. B. and BridwellL. S. (eds.), Guilford Press, New York, 1984.
8.
DaiuteC. A., Writing and Computers, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1985.
9.
GrahamS. and MillerL., Handwriting Research and Practice: A Unified Approach, Focus on Exceptional Children, 12, pp. 1–16, 1980.
10.
VaccN. N., Word Processor versus Handwriting: A Comparative Study of Writing Samples Produced by Mildly Mentally Handicapped Students, Exceptional Children, 54, pp. 156–165, 1987.
11.
MacArthurC. A. and GrahamS., Learning Disabled Students' Composing under Three Methods of Text Production: Handwriting, Word Processing, and Dictation, The Journal of Special Education, 21, pp. 22–42, 1987.
12.
GouldJ. D., Composing Letters with Computer-Based Text Editors, Human Factors, 23, pp. 593–606, 1981.
13.
TawneyJ. W. and GastD. L., Single Subject Research in Special Education, Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio, 1984.
14.
TiedtI. M., The Language Arts Handbook, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1983.
15.
MullisI. V., Scoring Direct Writing Assessments: What Are the Alternatives?, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 14, pp. 16–18, 1984.
16.
CooperC. R. and OdellL. (eds.), Research on Composing: Points of Departure, National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois, 1978.
17.
VaccN. N., Writing Evaluation: Examining Four Teachers' Holistic and Analytic Scores, Elementary School Journal, 90, pp. 87–95, 1989.
18.
DiederichP. B., Measuring Growth in English, National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois, 1984.
19.
GlassG. V. and HopkinsK. D., Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984.
20.
FlowerL. and HayesJ. R., Cognitive Process Theory of Writing, College Composition and Communication, 32, pp. 365–387, 1981.
