THE USE OF COMPUTERS FOR WRITING: EFFECTS ON AN ENGLISH COMPOSITION CLASS

Transcription

1 J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, VOI. 6(1) 41-48,1990 THE USE OF COMPUTERS FOR WRITING: EFFECTS ON AN ENGLISH COMPOSITION CLASS KR IS ROB1 NSON-STAVE LEY JOEL COOPER Princeton University ABSTRACT Students in English composition classes were assigned to either using computers or using paper and pen to write their course assignments. Analysis of their final essays revealed that those subjects assigned to use computers wrote better essays than those assigned to work on paper. Essays written on computer were judged of highcr quality, were longer, and contained fewer errors. Attitudes toward computers, writing and the course were also measured, and revealed that those who used computers throughout the course had more positive attitudes toward computers than those who did not. Attitudes toward writing and the coursc did not differ. These findings suggest that using a computer for writing can improve the quality of the work produced, and can also foster more positive views of computers. Computers are used increasingly often for writing tasks, and yet little is known about the ways in which computers might impair or improve the quality of writing. Daiute and colleagues argue that computers should help people to write more and better, by making both writing and revising simple and painless [l, 21. They suggest that the ability to make changes quickly and easily can free people to concentrate on one aspect of writing at a time, without being distracted by concerns over such things as spelling errors and tense disagreements. This should reduce some of the burden on short-term memory. As well, because revisions are simple, the writer s energy can go into repeated evaluations and refinements of the text, rather than laborious recopying. Finally the authors argue that the ease of moving blocks of texts should allow for improvements in the coherence and continuity of the argument. However, it remains an open question as to whether these beneficial effects do occur, and whether the computer has other, detrimental effects on the process of writing Bavwood Publishing Co.. Inc. doi: /N3WK-KC2Q-DVGD-7F0B

2 42 I K. ROBINSON-STAVELEY AND J. COOPER One issue relevant to this question is that of whether reading from a computer screen might compare unfavorably to reading from paper. Reading to revise and proofread is a necessary part of the writing process, and any impairment in reading comprehension or reading speed could have implications for the quality of writing produced with text-editors. Could and Grischkowsky found no effect of media on the accuracy of proofreading, but found that subjects proofread faster from paper [3]. However, a large majority of these subjects had less than two months experience on computers of any type, and little or no familiarity with the system used in the study. The speed difference found could be attributable to novelty and unfamiliarity, rather than problems inherent in using computers. Haas and Hayes found some evidence that spatial recall accuracy, information retrieval time, and time to reconstruct the meaning of scrambled text might be impaired for small screen displays relative to paper, but found no difference between reading from paper and reading from large screen displays [4]. These findings, based on very few subjects, could be the result both of doing very unfamiliar tasks on the computer, and of using a slow-speed computer, rather than the result of an impairment in reading speed or accuracy when using a computer. Feldmann and Fish suggested that the literature on the computer s effect on reading comprehension is inconclusive, and found in their own studies that text read from a computer screen was no more or less difficult to comprehend than text read from paper [S]. No strong evidence currently exists for impairment of either speed or comprehension of reading when using a computer. Less work has been done on how the use of computers and text-editors might directly affect the quality of the writing produced. Could found that quality of letter composition on computer and on paper did not differ, but that handwritten letters were composed more quickly than text-edited letters [6]. Haas and Hayes tested whether the lack of power of the text-editors and poor resolution of the computers used in Gould s study may have contributed to his findings [7]. They found that, using advanced workstations, subjects still took longer to compose letters, but the letters they produced were longer (quality again did not differ). From these results, it is unclear whether the computer facilitates or impairs writing: subjects were all told to complete the task quickly, and those in the workstation condition chose to say more, with no apparent effects on quality. In the current study we wished to examine what might happen if subjects concentrated less on time, and we evaluated the quality and length of their compositions. In addition, the previous writing quality studies examined people who chose to work with computers; we were interested in the computer s effect on the writing of people who have learned to use a computer but who were put in that situation through no choice of their own. We decided to study the work of students in English composition classes at a community college, to see what differences might emerge between those who, in their classes, were made to use computers and those who were made to use

3 WRITING AND COMPUTERS / 43 pen and paper. We were interested in whether the medium used has any effect on the quality of students writing; on their attitudes toward writing; on their attitudes toward the course; or on their attitudes toward computers. Clearly, effects on any of these domains has important implications for the use of computers for writing, and for the use of computers in composition classes. METHOD We examined essays written by seventy-nine students in English composition classes (40 written on computer, 39 handwritten on paper). The findings discussed here are part of a larger study examining people s attitudes toward computers and factors that affect those attitudes; here we will focus on the relative performance and attitudes of students who did or did not use computers to complete their writing assignments. Subjects were male and female students enrolled in either remedial or introductory English composition classes at a community college. Of these, some were in sections in which a computer and a word processing program were used for all writing; some were in sections where all writing was done with pen and paper. Each individual instructor at this college chose one of these two methods of instruction. Students were placed into one or the other of these two types of class based strictly on their class schedule; they did not have the opportunity to choose which they would prefer, nor did they know what they would be faced with until they arrived in class. Each student s particular schedule was a combination of all their class choices. Both computerized and non-computerized English composition sections, as well as sections for other courses, were offered throughout the morning, afternoon, and evening, and a given student s schedule was based on the best fit of all of their choices. There was no indication of any systematic relationship between schedule and placement into computerized versus non-computerized sections. Switching sections was not permitted, unless students could present evidence of a serious conflict, and English composition was a required course for all students. Students who were assigned to the computerized sections were told that they would be given instruction in the use of the computer, but that learning to use the word-processor was part of the course and they would have to accept that. The percentage of our subjects who dropped out of the course in the computerized section was extremely low (2.4%) suggesting that this constraint did not cause great concern among students, and did not result in any selection bias. Thus we have a situation where people are assigned to computer or paper-and-pencil conditions without self-selection, Subjects were also asked to rate their writing skills, as part of a questionnaire administered at the start of the course. Students in the computerized and noncomputerized sections did not differ in their reported skill level. Taken together, the method of assignment to sections and the students perceptions of their writing skills suggest that these two groups are initially equivalent.

4 44 / K. ROBINSON-STAVELEY AND J. COOPER We examined students from eight classes taught by teachers who chose to use computers in their classes (four classes from each of two instructors), and from four classes taught by teachers who chose to use pen and paper (two classes from each of two instructors). We used more than one instructor to reduce the likelihood that teaching style or quality, and not medium used, might be the cause of any performance differences. Students completed assignments during class time; they were either asked to work on paper in a classroom, or on a computer terminal in a computer lab. Students in the computerized sections were given instruction in the use of the computer (a VAX 11/780 running DEC VMS) and the word processing program being used (Word 11). They then proceeded to complete a full term s worth of assignments. This allowed students in the computerized sections ample opportunity to learn the system. For a performance measure, we examined the final essays written by seventynine of the students. These essays were chosen from the pool of final essays, with the criteria that some essays from each teacher s classes be included; within these limits selection was random. The assignment was to write an essay on a specified topic, in an allotted amount of time. Students received the assignment when they entered the class, and had until the end of the one-hour class period to hand in either a handwritten or computer-generated essay. Students in both computerized and non-computerized sections were asked to write on the same topic (remedial and introductory classes each had their own topic). All students were able to finish their essay within the time allowed. For performance evaluation purposes, the essays written with pen and paper were transferred onto the computer by a research assistant, with all spelling and grammar errors preserved, so that all essays could be presented for evaluation in the same format. All essays were then marked by a judge (a graduate student in the Department of English), who was unaware of the purpose of the study or the conditions under which each essay was written. Essays were given a holistic rating for overall quality. Marks ranged from one to seven with higher numbers indicating better essays. These essays were also marked by the instructors for the course; final grades were a combination of the marks assigned by that section s teacher and one other faculty member. We obtained these grades for all but three of the essays and analyzed these for differences as well. For the course grades, the pen-andpaper essays were evaluated as they were written (that is, without transfer to computer output to minimize visible differences), and all essays were marked on a scale from one to ten. To examine differences in the essays in more detail, we employed the Writer s Workbench, a software tool designed to study writing style by producing a profile of writing at the word and sentence level [8]. Using this program, we were able to determine, for each essay, a readability score (using the Kincaid formula to indicate reading grade level, derived from Navy tests of adult prose); number of spelling errors, punctuation errors and grammar errors; number of sentences;

5 WRITING AND COMPUTERS I 45 number of words; average sentence length; average word length; and number of simple, complex, compound, and compound-complex sentences. As part of the larger survey, subjects filled out questionnaires at the start of the course, and again at the end of the semester. The questions relevant to this research assessed whether students preferred to use a computer or pen and paper to write with, and whether they were interested in taking future composition courses that utilized computers for writing. Subjects also answered questions about how much they liked writing, and whether they were interested in taking further writing courses. In addition they responded to a series of questions about the course (how valuable, enjoyable, and interesting it was; how much they liked the assignment, lectures, and feedback) which were combined to create one measure of attitudes toward the course. All responses were made on seven-point scales, with higher numbers indicating greater liking and interest; more positive attitudes; and a preference for using computers to do their writing. On this last measure, low numbers indicated a preference for using pen and paper to do their writing, and a four indicated no preference. RESULTS The major factor of interest was whether or not students used a computer for their course work. Although performance was worse overall for remedial than for introductory students, this factor did not interact with writing condition. Gender also did not interact with condition. There were significant performance differences between students in the computerized sections and students in the non-computerized sections. Students in computerized sections received higher performance scores on their essays (M = 5.8) than did students in non-computerized sections, (M= 5.1), F(1,77) = 8.50, p <.01. Examining the course grades given by teachers, we find the same result. Students who wrote essays using the computer were given higher grades (M = 7.8) than did students who wrote essays by hand (M = 6.9), F(1,74) = 6.03, p <.05. These results are reflected in four of the Writer s Workbench measures. Essays written on the computer contained fewer punctuation errors (M = 0.05) than did handwritten essays,(m=0.31),f(l,77)=7.11,p <.01. Inaddition, the computergenerated work (M = 364.5) contained more words than the handwritten work (M = 297.4), F(1,77) = 7.26, p <.01. This finding is reflected, not in a larger total number of sentences, but in a greater average sentence length (M = 18.9 for the computer-generated work; M = 17.0 for the handwritten work), F(1,77) = 4.42, p <.05; and in a greater number of complex sentences (M = 8.4 for computergenerated; M = 6.8 for handwritten), F(1,77) = 4.51, p <.05. No differences were found for any of the other Writer s Workbench measures. Students in the two types of sections differed in their preferences for using a computer to do their writing, F(1,73) = 28.89, p <.001 in a repeated measures

6 46 I K. ROBINSON-STAVELEY AND J. COOPER analysis, at both the start and the end of the course. Those in the non-coniputerized sections preferred doing their writing without a computer (M = 3.4 on a seven-point scale where four means no preference), while students in the computerized sections preferred doing their writing with a computer (M = 5.3). At the start of the course, there were no differences between the two types of sections in their interest in taking future computerized writing courses. However, by the end of the course, students in the computerized sections expressed a greater interest in future computer courses (M = 5.0), than did students in the non-computerized sections (M= 3.6), F(1,45) = 5.99, p <.05. There were no differences between the two types of sections, at either the start or the end of the course, in their expressed liking of writing, their interest in future writing courses, or their attitudes toward the course. DISCUSS I ON This study found that subjects who worked on the computer wrote better essays than those who worked on paper, as measured by the performance scores, as well as the class grades, and the component measures of punctuation errors, number of words, average sentence length, and number of complex sentences. Without observing subjects actual writing behavior, we are unable to pinpoint what caused these effects, but following Daiute and Taylor s suggestions, certain things seem possible [2]. Subjects who worked on the computer wrote longer essays, perhaps because the computer does free the writer from concerns during writing, making the process easier. These subjects wrote more complex sentences, perhaps because the ease of revision gave them the opportunity to combine their ideas into coherent, higher-level sentences at some point after they had put the ideas down, when clear combinations became obvious. There were fewer punctuation errors, perhaps because students were more easily able to correct errors they had made. Students who worked on paper may have found it difficult to combine ideas into complex sentences and check their punctuation while putting down their ideas, and then found that it was prohibitively difficult to make those changes later, when it would have necessitated recopying the entire text. Although the exact mechanism is not demonstrated in this study, the overall quality of writing does seem to be improved by the use of the computer. This is in contrast to the findings of Could and Haas and Hayes, who found no quality differences between handwritten and computer-generated letters [6, 71. The difference may be due to the fact that these earlier studies imposed a stricter time constraint onsubjects (telling them to complete the task as quickly as possible) than the current study. The computer, if it has facilitating effects on the quality of writing, is most likely to affect the extent and quality of revisions, rather than the initially input text. If time constraints are severe, revisions would probably be minimal, and no improvement over handwritten work would be evident. When time is available to revise, improvements in quality

7 WRITING AND COMPUTERS I 47 may emerge. This would explain why quality comparisons in the current study do not match those of the previous studies. Attitude measures suggest that the use of a computer on an ongoing basis in a writing course has a positive effect on attitudes toward computers and has no effect on attitudes toward the course or toward writing. Subjects in the computerized sections of the course were more likely to indicate that they preferred to use a computer to write with and that they would be interested in using the computer in future writing courses, suggesting that this enforced exposure to computers had a positive effect on the way in which they were viewed. It is interesting that responses to the preference measure differed right from the start, while responses to the interest in future use measure only differed when subjects had completed the course, suggesting that the first was affected by just being in one of the sections of the course while the second was affected by learning or not learning to use the computer. The results of this study point to the value of continued research into the exact nature of the computer s effect on composition, but suggest that computers can have a facilitatingeffect on the quality and quantity of written material. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Preparation of this article was supported in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship to the first author, and in part by a McDonnell Foundation grant to the second author. REFERENCES 1. C. A. Daiute, The Computer as Stylus and Audience, College Composition and Communication, 34, pp , C. Daiute and R. Taylor, Computers and the Improvement of Writing, Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery, pp , J. D. Could and N. Grischkowsky, Doing the Same Work with Hard Copy and with Cathode-Ray Tube (CRT) Computer Terminals, Human Factors, 26, pp , C. Haas and J. R. Hayes, What Did I Just Say? Reading Problems in Writing with the Machine, Research in the Teaching of English, 20. pp , S. C. Feldmann and M. C. Fish, Reading Comprehension of Elementary, Junior High and High School Students on Print vs. Microcomputer-Generated Text, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, pp , J. D. Could, Composing Letters with Computer-Based Text Editors, Human Factors, 23, pp , C. Haas and J. R. Hayes, Pen and Paper vs. the Machine: Writers Composing in Hard Copy and Computer Conditions (Technical Report No. 16), Carnegie- Mellon University, Communications Design Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1986.

8 48 I K. ROBINSON-STAVELEY AND J. COOPER 8. L. L. Cherry and W. Vesterman, Writing Tools-The STYLE and DICTION Programs, in 4.2 BSD UNIX User s Manual, Supplementary Documents, University of California, Berkeley, Direct reprint requests to: Dr. Joel Cooper Department of Psychology Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544