bthbib

That’s not what I wiped griped hyped TYPED!

A Consideration of the Pedagogical Implications of Using Word Processors and their Affect on Writing

Teri Schamp-Bjerede

School of Education and Environment

Kristianstad University

Abstract- We all learned how to shape letters in different ways; with a pencil or crayon, or maybe by writing in the sand. However, basic handwriting must be understood and accomplished before graduating into the difficult skill of cursive handwriting. Professor Chris Dede relates that technologies can unobtrusively alter how we process information and express ourselves. (2012) Today, the computer is used more often than not, when communicating in a written form; as such it has changed the way in which people communicate, for better and worse.

This author assess the use of word processors as helpful tools, or hindrances in writing, and questions what these programs have affected, and how these effects are revealed by the users in connection to writing skills. By reviewing how writing skills are acquired, and how word processors are used, the author compares and contrasts ways in which those affects are exposed, and highlights instances of reliance that users have on word processors, and the tools found embedded in the programs.

Keywords – 21st century skills, knowledge retention, skill-sets, word processor, writing

1. Introduction

We  all  learned  how  to  shape  letters  in  different  ways;  with  a  pencil  or  crayon,  or maybe  by  writing  in  the  sand.  However,  basic  script  must  be  understood  and accomplished  before  graduating  into  the  difficult  area  of  cursive or so-called joined-up   handwriting. Penmanship  is  still  reflected  upon  and  noted,  and  the  beauty  of  any   artistic endeavor to broaden ones skills possibly into calligraphy can reveal an artist within. Penmanship looks at writing with an implement that is used to make lines and curves that represent those symbols that are connected to and signify a word within a language in the most appropriate way, guided by family, teachers or even friends

“Art was age-old when writing began” (Schmandt-Besserat, 2007), yet meaning was intended whether it be literal, or metaphorical. The earliest uses are thought to be connected to cuneiform writing, simple lines that conveyed meaning and information.

Image 1: Egyptian Hieroglyphs (Library: Thinkquest, 2012)

Egyptian Hieroglyphs

This progressed to actual pictographs that were representations of actual objects. As seen in Goldwasser (1995), the advent of actual hieroglyphs is most noticeable in Egypt (Image 1) where these images gave representations of sound to representations of images. Images that give meaning, is itself an area of research, and this is found as an influential area as icons are becoming used more often in our digital society. Moving into more recognizable writing and languages, one sees a critical step in writing evolution with the advent of the Phoenician alphabet. With its 22 “letters” representing only consonants, no vowels, this language became the basis for many writing scripts such as Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and the Latin alphabet. Learning to write became an art, a learned occupation that not everyone took for granted as we might do today.

Image 2: Phoenician Alphabet; approx. 1100 B.C. (BBC, 2012)

Phoenician Alphabet; approx. 1100 B.C.

Penmanship as a skill attained in schools, seems to be taking a distinct place behind computer printed texts. In Wei (2009), Chinese and Western handwriting values are discussed. The heritage involved in writing and connects to values of the person that is writing. As a result this gives a subtler, deeper meaning that is seldom found in word processor texts. Wei goes further to intimate that “the humanization advantage of handwriting has been neglected by the designers, and the power of computers makes the designing forms more plentiful.” Even Foley (1966) recognized at an early stage the important artistic side of Chinese writing by commenting that a mood was “created by its use as decoration even though we are utterly unable to decipher it [the symbols/words].” Reviewing the benefits of handwriting as a medium that gives insight and artistic creation as an outlet is also importance. Yet, the need for computers as a multi-modal communication and writing tool cannot be doubted either. As with other scholastic disciplines such as reading and arithmetic, writing is a core skill and this knowledge, whether by hand or computer, is expected to be commonplace in our day and age.

2. 21st Century Writing

It is said that handwriting, with cursive letters, is to soon be phased-out of being taught in schools, becoming obsolete as it were, not needed as a skill for the 21st century student. The keyboard would then be taught as the main mode to facilitate textual input and received output. Yet the consequences of such a decision require further study. Looking at questions such as what would the consequences be during the changeover is only one. Students might not know or understand cursive writing; yet at the same time teachers might still employ it. What difficulties would then arise when papers or essays are returned? One can posit that those students not understanding cursive writing would have troubles reading comments and instructions from teachers still employing this method. One could also posit that there could be a lack of knowledge about documents that have been written in cursive, leading to a dramatic loss of understanding for future generations, this could be especially true for historical documents as to being read and researched.

Thoughtful consideration is needed before taking such a drastic measure such as the one mentioned above, even now many newer computers have recognition features for cursive handwriting. Others employ specialized alphabets that are a combination of writing, cursive writing and symbols. This regression back to symbols and signifiers, those that represent meanings, brings an amalgamation of different usages. Here also, we embrace the minimalistic, time-saving options by utilizing images instead of words. Time saving options are an item of necessity in our quick-paced, 24/7 digital life. Writing with a word processor such as MS Word, Adobe Acrobat, Open Office just to name a few, can have distinct benefits. Yet, is it a time saving agent to actually rely on these helpful tools time and time again? Influences of using computers and digital devices can be studied.

One specific instance is using the C-C-P (copy-cut-paste) function. This time-saving shortcut that allows writers to highlight, move quantities of text, copy and paste to and from multiple documents are options that most of us cannot work without. With formatting options, as well as dynamic presets (table of contents, etc.) and other tool options that most word processors possess, there is an opportunity to save time. We all use computers, and those that do not, have cell phones, or access keyboard input devices that are used to communicate to one or the other. While many people use word processors, many more use the built-in aids. The common auto-correct list (ACL) and grammar and spelling checker are two of the convenient aids that both of these word processing programs have. Spelling checks, language rule checks and even short phrases are already built-in, and can easily be added with a few clicks and key strokes; a language specific thesaurus is also an important function for many writers. These convenient and time saving aids have helped many people create better texts, especially when you are not writing in your native language. While we have come to expect helpful assistance from the word processor, there can be fallbacks when writing with word processors that have these built-in supports for the user.

There is an awareness needed by users, not necessarily connected only to knowing how to use these helpful tools and short-cuts, but linked to knowing when to make use of them, and when not. One should skim the “help” pages to acquire knowledge, yet if one truly wanted to, one could work with the program so as to be able to retain previous knowledge of writing while incorporating new understanding. When working with writing one needs to be note what is conveyed not only by the words one writes, but with the symbols, punctuation and layout. Possibly more important is that the writing is understandable. If a writer avails himself of these helpful tools too often, that previous knowledge of setting up an article, a CV, a spread sheet file, etc. could be unused, by not utilizing knowledge one has, there is a distinct possibility that one loses it. What is left in its place is the process of knowing what button to push to create the reaction wanted for the computer, yet as seen with the new MS Word ribbon interface, re-learning what button to push now becomes time consuming instead. Schrage, referring to Akinson, comments on how

there’s no shortage of “well-educated” college graduates who can’t write intelligible synopses or manage simple spreadsheets. I know doctoral candidates in statistics and operations research who find adapting their superb technical expertise to messy, real-world problem solving extraordinarily difficult. Their great knowledge doesn’t confer great skill. (2010)

3. Knowledge Retention vs. Knowledge Dumping

When does the writer give over control to the program? Why does the user choose to do so? When using word processors, such as MS Word or Google Docs, there is an inherent connection that the machine is more knowledgeable than the user. As seen, the user will choose to relinquish control and the decision making instances that the user is faced with become those that the program suggests. At most times, this is in connection to the built-in functioning grammar and spelling checker. This gives clues to the user, as to their own knowledge of these two areas. How is it then that the program becomes the controllant? And what are the subsequent consequences of trusting a machine?

Working with writing demands a certain belief in ones own inherent, learned knowledge in the writing ability one has. If a teacher instructs students that there is a need to be aware of how the tool (spelling / grammar checker) influences the writing, then there should be an affect that users will subsequently be on guard for these problems. When working with new texts, vocabulary or special topical terminology, a writer can be faced with a situation of not knowing if a colloquialism is n accepted part of writing. Language competence is posited by Bachman as being composed of two parts, organizational and pragmatic competence. (Bachman, as quoted by Jordon, 1990) Whereas organizational looks to grammar and textual abilities, pragmatic competence looks at the ability of the person when writing or speaking and their knowledge of usage and what is intended by the words, conventions and usage of these. An added area to be aware of is the effect that poor writers’ writings have on excellent writers. By reading essays, emails and other documents, one is easily influenced by incorrect grammar and spelling if read repeatedly. Habitually reviewing these texts before being sent or delivered is of high importance, On-going bombardment of continuous poor writing can lead to a backwash effect where the excellent writers start to question their own knowledge about their writing skills.

Variability and at the same time completeness in sentences and paragraphs is imperative, so being able to use the grammar and spell-checker with a heightened sense of awareness is imperative, yet these are not the only questionable elements found in word processors. Noted also were issues with punctuation usage, contextually incorrect words, even subject-verb agreements (Krishnamurthy, 2006; Kies, 2012). Findings released proved that all of these items are limited as to their being complete aids, and should be more of a compliment to the practiced writer, and not a complete editor that the writer relies upon. Two types of writing that are pertinent are termed low-stakes and high-stakes writing. Low-stakes writing are those areas of notes, ideas, brain storming. These items go together and lead up to a final article, assignment or project. This type of writing uses different writing skills that are centered on the originator as it connects directly to the type of intelligence the writer has and employs; the organizational skills as well as the experience of the writer. Gardner’s discussion (1989) on multiple intelligences is a foundation for student-centered learning types, where the individual is aware of their learning style and uses it for the best results. High-stakes writing connects to those texts that are written and directly affect final grades, finished work, and other accomplishments. Both high- and low-stakes writing are part of the average student repertoire of work, and many employ the word processor for both of these types of stakes writing.

4. L2, Language and the Word Processor – Deconstruction

Derrida’s deconstructionist ideas on texts and how “there is nothing beyond the text” (2000), plays into the need for a reader of the text. Only by having both text and reader, can a deconstruction take place. Opposite this is the computer program, here there is not only the program and the user, the text and reader respectively, there is also the multitude of cause and effect that is produced through the interaction of the two that goes beyond the text.

Programs have been developed to encourage writing, and self-learning for L2 (second language) learners. Milton and Cheng (2010) write about promoting language awareness when using word processors. Their discussion of different programs, such as Check My Words and Word Neighbors, comes back to the need for the user to choose to engage the program, and in turn, receive help. The motivational aspect is a noble one as they state that “teachers are typically called upon to provide individual support to large numbers of students who are often at  various  levels  of  acquisition  and  who  have  a wide  range  of  motivational  drives  and  individual needs.” This self-help is what most teachers wish students to avail themselves of, yet, it is difficult to do more than suggest and tell the students to use these tools. This is the backbone of some problems when using these language tools. Many students, for multiple reasons, do not care to employ these self-help items, and thus do not avail themselves of the learning opportunity. Some have noted that it helps them to increase their work pace. As discussed above, one finds built in templates, spelling and grammar checkers that make quick work of the problems that are inherent in writing for all levels, yet especially for L2 learners.

Mozgovoy’s (2010) article on the XDG Parser reviews basic problems that need to be addressed whenever using any type of grammar, spell-checker or computer program aimed at language help and tutoring. First noted is that the program is less developed than our language. As all languages are living objects flexible, moldable to circumstance, and a subject of constant change. Keeping abreast of these changes is time consuming as updating programmed software is not a one-off event. Many of these tools are not task dedicated, and as such are not content specific enough to be have an affect on the topic the writer is writing about; this leads to common errors, whereas a need for more specificity is not met. The different programs named are only a few of those available, yet they all have an inherent problem, the writer may either ignore the problem completely, or the writer is most often, given the answer.

Other problems are that these grammar and spell-checking tools are not always correct. As seen with many students even if the program “provide[s]  authentic  information  about  the  patterns  of  language,  …  the  L2  writer  must  often decide which context is appropriate for a particular case.” Milton and Cheng (2010) Those students that have experienced the problems of trusting a computer program, only to be corrected by the instructor, are then reluctant to continue to do so. During these situations it becomes paramount to have the teacher and student relate and communicate so that this knowledge comes to light, and the teacher is aware of these problems, thereby giving the students instructions as to how and when to use these tools.

A further consideration is the multitude of devices that are now used for writing. Many people today not only make use of personal computers, but laptops, slate computers, pda:s and mobile phones that they work with. The multitude of communication programs that are OS (operating system) to device specific must also be considered. Many programs, as compared to OS, have basic versions as well as so-called light versions that do not require the hardware standards that the basic versions employ. In Inches, et al (2010), their study concluded that singleton terms are problematic in short texts, these being blogs, chats, sms:s. These types of terms are used in context specific instances, and used only once in text sets. Many who use smart phones to produce texts must be especially careful before sending or uploading texts as the T9 algorithm can be unforgiving. T9, or intuitive word generator, has employs algorithms based on a multitude of different habits the user produces when he uses his smart phone. The T9 algorithm collects data. This data is checked against which words are possible when the input is given with the keyboard after each letter is typed. It then provides options so that you will not have to write out the full word, the algorithm can also be set to prioritize words that are frequently used by the phone user. The T9 is considered to be a time saving program, and possibly so. Yet, the user needs to be conscious of the results given, as these can be incorrect and misleading.

5. Hand-written vs. Computer-written Essays

As an important note about usage for grades, is to note that neither hand-written nor computer-written essays give you an advantage. Studies have shown rating bias in the past. Wolfe, et al (1993) notes that textual appearance changed and computer written essays were graded lower. In a study from the early 1990’s Wolfe tells of 300 hand-written essays were scored on a 6-point scale. These same essays were then transcribed and written on a word processor and scored using the same scale. It was found that the essays from the word processors scored a mean average of 0.3 less than the hand-written ones. Handwritten, formal essays gave visual clues to the different drafts leading up to the final submitted piece of work. Items of language issues could not easily be ignored on paper drafts as most tutors use marking pens to highlight different issues they find, red for spelling, yellow for grammar, orange for unclear construction, etc. Over time though, the use of the word processor has prevailed. With the convenience and usefulness of this tool, studies now show that the word processor is used by most essay writers.

No significant difference exists between the scores of handwritten and computer-written student essays, according to a study produced by the Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment (2008). This was a two-fold study. It reviewed the essay writer’s quality of writing, as well as reviewing the rating and grading approach as a holistic process. The results gave credence to that there is no significant difference in the final product, nor could there be found any grading bias. What remained though was the comment “students tended to do more extensive preplanning for the paper-and-pencil essays than for the computer-based essays”. (Florida State University, 2008) This comment can give insight to many writing and essay instructors. The planning stage is one of the most important areas for any writer, it is the starting point where plans are made and arrangements for the essay are decided upon. As many students use laptops in the classroom in this day and age, this pre-planning stage of any written essay needs to be given extra consideration, lest this stage be skipped to the detriment of the final draft.

6. The Correlation to Higher Education Pedagogy 

Two main focuses of many, in the pedagogy field are the distinct areas of holistic and atomistic approaches in learning. Most teachers aim to have students that understand the connection between how knowledge is gained, and how it can be transformative and adaptable; being exploitable in many ways. Those who use word processors often fall back upon an atomistic approach, using those built-in tools found in these programs, and can become ingrained in continuously employing this approach. These users though might not ever take the step to move into the deep or holistic approach when writing; not relying on these tools to do the written work, but relying on their learned knowledge and relying on these built-in tools as a type of interactive-tutor, helping to better a process.

Educators need to draw on pedagogical knowledge that can help them understand the difference how “the technology sets the beat and creates the music, while the pedagogy defines the moves.” (Andersson & Dron, 2011) One can then understand that this is a way in instructors need ton comprehend that technology is used as a tool, no more. That any pedagogy employed in this context is a developmental skill that is comprehensive. This ‘art’ that Andersson and Dron refer to then, must be understood in its own context as one, the difference between the art of writing, having knowledge on a deeper level and employing this as compared to surface knowledge, the knowledge a student of knowing what button or key to push to have the machine employ its knowledge of writing.

7. Summation

Technology is, among other items, altering the way in which we work, express ourselves and communicate. As technology is seen by many educators and students to offer new ways of teaching in order to enhance the learning process, it is also seen as raising students’ learning awareness; yet careful pedagogic consideration is required. The aids found in word processors are transforming the user and the knowledge that the user has; the user’s knowledge is now starting to be deconstructed and re-constructed by interaction with programs. However the original knowledge is not necessarily retained as new, easier shortcuts are attained by the user. Shortcuts allow all users of word processors to get away with subverting learned knowledge with that tool, and by doing so the teacher has altered the responsibility of employing knowledge from the topic being taught, in this case writing, to that of using word processor shortcuts and other conveniences in the program. We all use the embedded helpful tools, spelling and grammar checkers. We also avail ourselves of the synonym tool and make use of templates by passing the need to do this work ourselves.

Educators need to be aware of the helpful tools found in word processors and the knowledge building or knowledge “dumping” that can occur. Many students take for granted that these programs are correct, leaving off the need for reviewing and/or working with peers; in doing so teachers will need to address their own pedagogical skills when using word processors in assignments required of students. When writing, teachers must then choose correctly, employing pedagogical knowledge that promotes the learning of, and knowledge that the writing assignment is to help the student learn, rather than a student that knows which button to push. As a teacher, helping your students gain knowledge of the writing process, remember the reflective process of the knowledge they are gaining from the interactive and adaptive word processor. It is reflection of this knowledge that everyone needs to retain.

8. References

Anderson, T. &  Dron, J.   “Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 12.3  (2011)

Birgit, H.; Allen, P.; Cummins J. and Swain M. “Communicative Competence Revisited.” The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Chapter 3.

Dede, C. “Six Challenges for Educational Technology.” Project ScienceSpace. (1998): 1-12. Web. Sept. 2012.  <http://www.learningdomain.com/6_challenges.IT.pdf>.

“Empires Past: Egypt: Hieroglyphics.” Thinkquest. Thinkquest, Web. Sept. 2012. <http://library.thinkquest.org/16325/e-hie.html>.

Foley, L. “It Doesn’t Look Right.” Reading Horizons. 6.3 (1966): 91-98.

Gardner, H., and Hatch T. “Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educational Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences.” Educational Researcher. 18.8 (1989): 4-10.

Goldwasser, O. From icon to metaphor: studies in the semiotics of the hieroglyphs. Fribourg: University Press, 1995.

Inches, G., Carman M., and Crestani F. “Statistics of Online User-Generated Short Documents.” ECIR 2010: European Conference on Information Retrieval. (2010): 649-652.

Kies, D. “Evaluating Grammar Checkers: A Comparative Ten-Year Study.” English 2126: Modern English Grammar. DuPage College, Jan 2012. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/gramchek.htm>.

King, FJ, Rohani, F., Sanfilippo, C., and White, N. “Effects of Handwritten Versus Computer-Written Modes of Communication on the Quality of Student Essays.” CALA Report 208. (2008): 1-62. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://www.cala.fsu.edu/files/writing_modes.pdf>.

Krishnamurthy, S. “A Demonstration of the Futility of Using Microsoft Word’s Spelling and Grammar Check.” Sandeep Krishnamurthy Professor and Director, Business Administration Program. University of Washington, April 2006. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/check/>.

Milton, J., and Cheng, V.S.Y. “A Toolkit to Assist L2 Learners Become Independent Writers.” Association for Computational Linguistics; Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Writing. (2010): 33-41.

Mozgovoy, M. “Extensible Dependency Grammar for Education: Ideas and Experiments.” Journal of Convergence. 1.1 (2010): 29-34.

Schmandt-Besserat, D. (2007). Introduction. When Writing Met Art: From Symbol to Story. (pp. 3-). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Schrage, M. “Higher Education Is Overrated. Skills Aren’t.” Harvard Business Review 29 July, 2010 Web. <http://www.businessweek.com/managing/
content/jul2010/ca20100730_680104.htm>.

Stephens, M. “Deconstructing Jacques Derrida; The Most Reviled Professor in the World Defends his Diabolically Difficult Theory.” Los Angeles Times Magazine [Los Angeles] 21 July 1991, New York University Web. <http://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/Jacques%20Derrida%20-%20LAT%20page.htm>.

“Study Completed on Effects of Writing Modes on Essay Quality.” Florida State University. Florida State University, 27 Oct 2008. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://www.cala.fsu.edu/articles/2>.

“The Development of the Western Alphabet.” BBC – h2g2. BBC, 2012. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A2451890>.

Wei, X. “The Application Research on Handwriting in China and Western Countries.” Computer-Aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design, 2009. CAID & CD 2009. IEEE 10th International Conference. (2009): 1512 – 1515.

Wolfe, E., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., and Welch, C. “A Comparison of Word-Processed and Hand-Written Essays from a Standardized Writing Assignment.” ACT Report Series. 93.8 (1993): 1-30.

License