INCORPORATING A WORD PROCESSOR 3attitudes, completion rates, effect on enjoyment and confidence, effects on mechanics,neatness, creativity, time management, the software package and gender differences.Beck and Fetherston’s (2003) research is carried out according to acceptableresearch methods, presents a logical argument and is well organized, clear, and easy toread. However, there are some discrepancies. The most important term in their article is“word processor” and unfortunately they do not define it clearly and, furthermore,consider a software package to function in the same way. In addition, they use the termsinterchangeably, which has the potential to be confusing for their audience.While reading the article, a number of questions came to mind regardingsufficient evidence for Beck and Fetherston’s arguments and findings. First of all, because the group of students they observed was so small, I do not believe that their findings could be correlated to other similar groups of students in the western world.Secondly, I presume that the audience of their article would be other primary yearsteachers, such as myself. However, they do not present and refute opposing points of view, which had me wondering if there was an ulterior motive to the purpose of their study. These questions aside, this article helped me to understand the subject, studentsusing computers for writing.In conclusion, I believe that this article has the potential to be an importantcontribution to the field of primary years education. Beck and Fetherston’s (2003)statement, “A word processor, if implemented into the curriculum should not be usedmerely in isolation to perform unrelated tasks, or used as a reward tool” (p. 141) evokes aresponse from me in that technology, and word processors in this case, hold the potentialto be integrated into instruction in order to personalize student learning.