Initial Effects of Word Processing on Writing Quality and Writing Anxiety of Freshman

Writers
Author(s): Milton Teichman and Marilyn Poris
Source: Computers and the Humanities, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Apr., 1989), pp. 93-103
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30200148
Accessed: 06-02-2017 04:01 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Computers and the
Humanities

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Computers and the Humanities 23: 93-103, 1989.
c 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Initial Effects of Word Processing on Writing Quality

and Writing Anxiety of Freshman Writers

Milton Teichman and Marilyn Poris

Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York, NY 12601, U.S.A.

Abstract: Eight English instructors at Marist College, Pough- conducted at Marist College to learn about the
keepsie, New York, conducted a one-semester controlled initial effects of word processing on the writing
experiment with freshman in eight randomly selected classes
quality and writing anxiety of 80 freshmen of
of "College Writing" to learn about the initial effects of word
processing on essay-writing performance and on writing average writing ability.
apprehension. Four classes wrote essays using terminals In recent years, much has been written about
linked to a mainframe computer (Experimental Group), and the benefits of word processing for student writers.
four classes wrote essays in the traditional mode using pens, Among the advantages cited are the following:
pencils or typewriters (Control Group). The eight instructors
Word processing allows students to rewrite with-
agreed upon a common syllabus and common teaching
approaches for the freshman writing course. To measure out recopying, thus motivating them to revise and
writing performance, they devised an analytic scale. To to become conscious of writing as a process (Bean,
measure writing apprehension, they used a writing apprehen- 1983; Collier, 1983; Daiute, 1983). It allows
sion test developed by Daly and Miller. The Experimental students to write more quickly and, initially, to
Group showed greater progress than the Control Group from
worry less about niceties of style (Larson, 1984). It
the pre to post Essay Test but could not demonstrate superior
performance on the six required essays of the course. For increases the quantity of student writing (Daiute,
writing apprehension, there was no significant difference 1983; Sadler and Greene, 1986). It helps make
between the two groups. writing a communal experience in the writing lab
as students talk to one another about their work
Key Words: composition, word processing, computers, writing
(Sadler and Greene, 1986). It places writing in a
anxiety, writing quality.
fresh context, makes the task of writing more
enjoyable and more interesting, thus opening up
Introduction
the possibility for improvement (Feldman, 1984;
The following is a report of a one-semester study
Teichman, 1985).
In the light of such claims, it is not surprising
that more and more teachers are introducing word
Milton Teichman (Ph.D., English, University of
processing into their writing classes. Indeed, some
Chicago) is professor of English at Marist College,
colleges and universities are having all freshman
Poughkeepsie, New York. He has directed writing
composition classes use computers in the hope
programs in freshman writing and has supervised
that this tool will help improve student writing
research in the field of technology and writing. He
skills. (For a case history, see Forseth, 1985.) The
has written on innovative approaches to the teach-
feeling prevails that the computer holds excep-
ing of writing, as well as on a range of literary
tional promise for the teaching of writing. As Stine
subjects from the poetry of Wordsworth to the
(1985) observes in her report on a survey of
literature of the Holocaust.
computer use in composition instruction: "I guess
Marilyn Poris (Ph.D., Research Methodology, the main impression I got after reading through all
Hofstra University) is currently serving as Director of the survey responses [a total of 91] was that in
of Institutional Research a Marist College, where theory we accord computers virtually unlimited
she also teaches courses in statistics. potential as a teaching and writing tool." The title

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 94 MILTON TEICHMAN AND MARILYN PORIS

processing to
of a recent NCTE Publication points on writing
this quality.
senseWill freshmen,
of promise, even if it includesnewly introduced to word processing,
a cautionary note: write signifi-
Computers in the English Classroom; Promises
cantly stronger essays than students using pens,
pencils, and typewriters?
and Pitfalls (Chew, 1984). Enthusiasm for theOr will the introduction
new
tool is reflected in the growing of the new tool of
number have journal
a negative or neutral effect on
writing
articles on computers and writing, inquality?
the fact that
we now have at least two journals devoted
Our second to to the issue of
objective related
writing anxiety. Teachers of writing, journalism,
computers and writing, The Computer-Assisted
Composition Journal, and Computers and
and related fields Com-
frequently encounter students
position; and at least one textbook
who find on computer-
writing an uncomfortable, punishing, and
even fearful experience. Indeed, the typical text-
ized composition (Schwartz, 1985).
Now and then one hears a voice book frequently
raised offers
againstadvice to students on
the computer for writing (Hertz, gaining confidence
1983; in writing. Studies have shown
Gollan,
that apprehension
1984), but the general tone is exceedingly about writing is widespread
hopeful.
Schwartz, composition director among
at student writers, that
Montclair it is a condition which
State
College in New Jersey, believes can impede
that students
by givingin their academic work,
every student a computer, we canthem
discourage "endfrom the
electingso advanced writing
called 'crisis' in basic writing skills" (1983). Larson and have far-
courses, influence choice of major,
reaching consequences
(1984), arguing for computer-based composition with regard to career
choice
instruction, concludes that "it is and self-image
a brave (Daly and Miller, 1975a;
new world
Daly and Shamo,
of microelectronics, and our strides forward 1976, 1978;
in it Richmond and
Dickson, 1980). We
must be sure as well as swift." Similarly, thewished to learn whether the
editors
of The Computer-Assisted Composition Journal
introduction of word processing reduces or in-
conclude that "Computer-Assisted creases writing anxiety in college
Composition is freshmen. Will
a... salvation for basic, developmental,
the new medium, by and
placing writing in a new
context, divorced
learning-disabled students" (Sadler and from past associations of tedium
Greene,
1986). and frustration for many students, have the effect
While the enthusiasm for the new writing tool is of lessening writing apprehension? Or will the new
encouraging, at least two basic questions remain tool have a negative or simply neutral effect on
unanswered. First, does word processing actually writing apprehension?
improve writing? Second, does it actually reduce We are aware of a controlled experiment (still
the psychological barriers that many students unpublished) by Cross and Curey (1984) to learn
bring to the writing process? As Bridwell, Nancar- the effects of word processing on student writers
row, and Ross (1984) have observed in their in three areas: attitude (including writing anxiety),
review of the literature on the subject, there has writing performance, and process (brainstorming,
been little research to substantiate claims for the rough-drafting, revision). This study dealt with two
new writing tool. Similarly, Harris (1985), speak-issues central to our study - namely writing
ing of the "largely unsubstantiated claims" madeperformance and writing anxiety. The Cross-Curey
for word processing, states: "Few existing studiesexperiment involved three sections of a required
provide useful information about how word pro-freshman English course at Indiana University of
cessing affects student writing." A survey of recentPennsylvania. Each section was split in half. A
studies focusing mainly on the effect of word total of 31 students used microcomputers while
processing on the composing and revising strate-the remainder used conventional writing tools. In
gies of various groups of writers (from 6th gradersthe words of the authors, the data in this study did
to journalists and novelists) may be found innot support "any general statements about the
Hawisher (1986). effect of word processing on writing." The data
Out study addresses the need for more empiri-showed "that the effect of word processing on
cal research on the impact of word processing onwriting varies with the writer and overall factors
student writers. Our objectives were essentiallyrelated to the teacher and class."
two. We wished to learn about the effects of word Our controlled experiment, which avoided split

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 EFFECTS OF WORD PROCESSING ON WRITING 95

classes to achieve a clearer separation

4 classes who
ofcomposed
treat- and revised their essays
ments, focused only on writing with
quality and writing
pens, pencils, and typewriters. None used the
apprehension. It involved 80 students
computer forusing com-
the writing of essays. While students
puter terminals in four classesinand 80 students
the Experimental inwere writing their
Group
four classes using traditional essays
writingin a Writing
tools.Lab
Ourset aside for them only,
study, whose overall design differs from
students in thethe Cross
Control Group wrote in traditional
and Curey study, represents aenvironments.
further effort Participating
to instructors were all
teachers of English.
measure the impact of word processing They were selected on the
on college
writers. We believe our resultsbasis
may of their interest into
contribute the project and their
an understanding of what word willingness
processing to can
workand
as team members. Once
cannot do for student writers inselected, they were
the early randomly
stages of assigned either to
its use, and may be of assistance to teachers
the Experimental and
or Control Group, but not to
both.
departments considering the introduction of com-
puter technology into their writing programs.
Instruction
Process All eight classes followed the same syllabus,
designed by the instructors involved in the project.
Participants Reading and writing assignments were the same
Eight classes (160 students) were randomly se- across the eight classes. Students read contem-
lected from a total of 16 classes of "College porary essays on a range of humanistic subjects -
Writing" designed for freshmen of average writing e.g. the values we live by, obedience to authority,
ability. At Marist College, students are assigned to the impact of fairy tales on children, morality and
"College Writing" on the basis of their SAT verbal the movies, etc. Their essay assignments required
scores, their high-school English record, and a them to synthesize, analyze, or critique their
Placement Essay Exam. We were thus drawing readings in 500 words or more. Students were
from a basically homogeneous group of students. given two weeks to complete each essay.
Of the 8 classes randomly selected from the 16, 4 To encourage revision, instructors in both
were randomly designated as the Experimental groups required that a preliminary draft be sub-
Group and 4 as the Control Group. The Experi- mitted after the first week of the two-week period.
mental group thus consisted of 80 freshmen Students using the computer submitted computer
(one-half the selected group) in 4 classes of twenty printouts of their preliminary drafts. Students in
each who composed, revised, and printed their the Control Group submitted handwritten or
essays on the computer. These students were given typed preliminary drafts. A rigorous application of
access to IBM 3279 terminals linked to an IBM the analytic scale for scoring essays (to be dis-
4341 mainframe computer. They learned to use cussed
a below) further encouraged students to
file editor called XEDIT and a formatting pro- revise their work.
gram called Waterloo Script. They printed their In addition to stressing revision, participating
essays on IBM 3287 matrix printers. Students instructors agreed to employ peer criticism in
in the Experimental Group had access to small 20 groups and individual conferences between
terminals from 8:00 AM to midnight every student day and instructor. As much as possible, they
except Sunday. Students did not report either a sought to make instruction uniform. To encourage
consistency of instruction across the eight sec-
shortage of terminals or insufficient access to the
Writing Lab where terminals were housed. tions, instructors followed the same session-by-
session outline.
The 160 subjects were reduced to 158 when
one student, intimidated by the new medium,Instructors in the Experimental classes departed
requested a transfer to a non-computer section of this outline by devoting three hours of class
from
College Writing and another student droppedtime
out during the first two weeks of the semester to
of an Experimental section for reasons unrelated
teach their students word processing. They taught
to the computer. their students only what they needed to know to
The Control Group consisted of 80 freshmencompose,
in revise, and print the required course

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
96 MILTON TEICHMAN AND MARILYN PORIS

Essay Test,
essays. While these students were there was no word
learning scoring of separate
features.in
processing, their counterparts Each the
instructor assigned an overall score
Control
Group were moving ahead with of 1-6 to thework
the student essay,
ofthe composite score
the
course. Students in the Experimental thus ranging from
thus three hours behind in actual course instruc-
a Post-Essay Test they believed was comparable in
tion. Surprisingly, none of the students in the difficulty to the Pre-Essay Test.
Experimental classes had a prior knowledge of
word processing, though approximately one-third
had experience with computers in high school.
Tests and Scoring
Tests for determining differences in writing quality
between the two groups were a pre and post essay
and six course essays. Tests for determining dif-
ferences in writing apprehension were a pre and
post writing apprehension test.
1. Pre and Post Essay Test
The pre-test was the freshman Placement Essay -
the primary basis for student assignment to
"College Writing" (hereafter referred to as the
Pre-Essay Test). The post-test was the Final Essay
Exam for the course (hereafter referred to as the
Post-Essay Test). For each of these tests, the
student was required to read an extended passage
and then to formulate and develop a thesis in
response to the passage. Each essay test was two
hours long and hand written. We decided to have
students in the Experimental Group write the
Post-Essay Test by hand despite their semester-
long experience on the computer. We had two
reasons for this procedure. First, we wished to
match the conditions of the Pre-Essay Test, a
method consistent with basic research design. In
addition, instructors agreed that a true test of the
computer's contribution to writing quality would
be the student's ability to write well without
dependency on the medium. If the computer helps
to improve writing, we should see that improve-
ment whether or not the student uses the com-
puter.
Each essay test was graded holistically by two
instructors other than the student's course instruc-
tor. Instructors agreed upon the features or dimen-
sions to be evaluated and came together for a
practice grading session prior to actual grading.
(The features agreed upon were essentially the
same as those used for the evaluation of the course
essays discussed below.) For the Pre and Post
2-12. Instructors
Group were met to design
2. Course Essays
A series of six essays were assigned during the
semester. These were scored somewhat differently
from the Pre and Post Essay Test. The eight
instructors cooperatively developed an analytic
scale (see Fagan, Cooper, and Jensen 1975;
Cooper 1977), for the evaluation of the six
expository essays of the course. This scale de-
scribed in non-technical language what the in-
structors considered to be high, mid, and low
quality levels for each of five features included in
the evaluation: content, organization, sentence
structure, diction, and mechanics (comprising
grammar, punctuation, and spelling). (See Appen-
dix A.) The scale also specified a range of scores
for each of the quality levels.
Students in both groups received copies of
the analytic scale and were thus made aware of
how their essays were being judged and scored.
Students were also encouraged to use the scale as
a checklist during the revising and editing stages of
their writing. They also used it as a guide for
responding in small groups to the essays of fellow
students.
On a rating sheet attached to each student
essay, instructors assigned a score ranging from 1
(very poor) to 7 (excellent) for performance in
each of the five features. (See Appendix B for
Rating Sheet.) The highest cumulative score for an
essay was thirty-five; the lowest, seven. The sub-
scoring for each feature served a double purpose.
For purposes of research, it permitted a com-
parison of the performance of Experimental and
Control Group in each of the five features evalu-
ated. Such scoring could, for example, tell us
whether students in the Experimental Group
wrote more organized essays or essays stronger in
content than students in the Control Group. For
purposes of teaching, the sub-scores provided
students and instructors with a more accurate
diagnosis than would a cumulative score by itself.
As Cooper (1977) points out, an analytic scale

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 EFFECTS OF WORD PROCESSING ON WRITING 97

has its limitations. It may not be groups in writing

sensitive to allquality
the and writing apprehen-
sion,
variations which can occur in pieces analyses of
written in covariance
the were employed. The
same mode, but it is nevertheless highly
effects useful
of the pre-condition (pre-test) were thus
as a "general or global guide for statistically
responding removed to from
a the post-condition
piece of writing." We have already commented
(post-test) on
prior to comparison of the two groups.
its usefulness to students for revision, Heuristically,forstep-wise
peermultiple regression was
criticism, and for its clear statement of the
employed criteria
to assess the contribution of predictor
by which writing in the course isdemographic being judged. variables to the criterion variable
To ensure valid and reliable measurement of (post-test score). In addition, a Repeated Meas-
student writing, the eight English instructors - ofures analysis was employed to observe the pattern
similar academic and experiential background -of progress of each group. An alpha level of 0.05
met every two weeks for practice grading sessionswas used to determine significance in all the
(one hour or more) during which they applied the statistical tests employed.
analytic scale to sample papers like those they
were about to score. In time, the instructors Results
Mean scores for each group on pre and post Essay
became increasingly aligned in their evaluations,
thus confirming Coffman's observation (1971): "In and Writing Apprehension tests are listed in Table
general, when made aware of discrepancies,1. The statistics listed in Table 1 reveal a greater
teachers tend to move their own ratings in the gain from pre to post scores for the Experimental
direction of the average ratings of the group. OverGroup in writing ability. However, the Analysis of
Covariance revealed no significant difference in
a period of time, the ratings of the staff as a group
tend to become more reliable." The group'swriting ability between the groups (see Table 2).
grading of 21 sample papers over the course of the From Table 2, we conclude that, though the
semester yielded an inter-rater reliability of 0.94Experimental Group evidenced greater gain than
using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. the Control Group, the variation fell within the
realm of chance. This conclusion is based on the
3. Writing Apprehension Test (WAT)
This 26-item instrument (reliability coefficient TABLE 1
0.921) was developed by Daly and Miller (1975a). Pre-test and Post-test Mean Scores by Group
The Writing Apprehension Test measures the
degree to which an individual associates writing Pre-essay Post-essay Pre-WAT Post-WAT
Group Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
with fear, anxiety, and failure, or with pleasure,
satisfaction, and success. The student is asked to
Exper. 3.97 0.74 6.07 1.86 74.8 25.08 81.5 26.53
agree with, disagree with, or state his/her uncer-
Control 4.25 0.70 5.68 1.86 82.0 16.77 76.3 30.96
tainty about statements like the following:

I avoid writing.
I have no fear of my writing being evaluated.
TABLE 2
I look forward to writing down my ideas.
Analysis of Covariance Results on Tests of Writing Ability
I am afraid of writing essays.
Taking a composition course is a very frighten-
Source of Sum of Mean Signif
ing experience.
Variation Squares DF Square F of F
Handing in a composition makes me feel good.
Main effects 6.467 2 3.233 0.930 0.397
Scores on this test can range from a low of
26 (high apprehension) to a high of 130 (low Grp 6.432 1 6.432 1.850 0.176
Pre (covar) 0.087 1 0.087 0.025 0.875
apprehension). The pre-test was administeredExplained 6.467 2 3.234 0.930 0.397
during the first week of the semester, the post-testResidual 538.991 155 3.477
during the last. Pre and post tests were identical. Total 545.458 157 3.474
To ascertain differences between the two

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
98 MILTON TEICHMAN AND MARILYN PORIS

for Content,
fact that the probability of the Organization,
F ratio is Sentence
greaterStructure,
and Diction,
than 0.05, which was determined atas the
tested by one-way analysis
outset to of
variance. A significant difference appeared only in
be the indicator of significance.
Hence, though it cannot be the areaconcluded
of Mechanics, where thethat
Control Group
was the stronger group.
students write significantly stronger Mean scores
essays when for each of
using word processing, it can be
the five concluded
features, that
by group, appear in Table 4.
computer intervention did not adversely affect the
Experimental Group. TABLE 4

To answer the second research

Cumulative question,
Mean Scores inas Fiveto Features of Essay Writing
whether word processing reduces orBoth Groups
increases
writing anxiety in college freshmen, statistics in
Dimension Exper. Group
Table 1 reveal that the Experimental GroupControl Group
showed reduced anxiety whereas the Control
Group showed an increase in Content 23.0 23.1
anxiety. However, a
Organization 23.2 23.0
second Analysis of Covariance using the pre and
Sentence Structure 22.4 23.5
post WAT scores revealed no Diction
statistically signifi-
22.1 23.7
cant differences between theMechanics
groups. Again,
18.5 the
21.3
probability of the F ratio is greater than 0.05 (see
Table 3).
One could conjecture that, in addition to
treatment (computer use vs. no computer use), de- Repeated Measures An
mographic variables such as sex, SAT verbal Essays
score, instructor, and status as resident or non- The two groups revealed disparate performance
resident student would impact on performance curves based on a Repeated Measures Analysis.
and therefore confound the results. Consequently, The scores of the Control Group for each of the
these variables were entered into a step-wise five features exhibited general linear progression,
multiple regression as predictors on the criterion whereas the scores of the Experimental Group for
variable, the post WAT score. No significant each feature exhibited curvilinearity. Mean scores
contribution was found for any of the predictors. for each group, by feature, across the six essays
appear in Table 5. The performance pattern, as
TABLE 3
scored, showed a greater number of spurts and
plateaus
Analysis of Covariance Results on Tests of Writing Appre-
for the Experimental Group. The Experi-
hension mental Group tended to show significant progress
earlier than the Control Group, which was surpris-
Source of Sum of Mean Signif ing given the need to learn word processing. For
Variation Squares DF Square F of F whatever reasons, however, the Experimental
Group was unable to sustain growth between essay
Covariates 0.016 1 0.016 0.061 0.805 assignments 2 and 3 as well as between assign-
WAT1 0.016 1 0.016 0.061 0.805 ments 4 and 5, a condition which warrants further
Main Effects 13.208 55 0.240 0.915 0.634
investigation.
WAT2 13.208 55 0.240 0.915 0.634
Explained 13.224 56 0.236 0.899 0.660
Residual 21.268 81 0.236 Conclusions
Total 34.492 137 0.252 Given our data, we cannot conclude a clearly
positive effect for the one-semester period. What
is clear from our data is that word processing does
not diminish writing quality among new users,
Comparison of Performancedespite
on theSix Course
fact that the student must learn new
Essays skills and adjust to a new way of writing. Thus the
There were no significant differences between the unpublished Cross and Curey study mentioned
two groups in the total scores across the six essays earlier, which could not establish superior writing

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 EFFECTS OF WORD PROCESSING ON WRITING 99

TABLE 5 reasons for having students in the Experimental

Repeated Mean Scores of Essay Features by Group for Six write the Post-Essay Test by hand, would
Group
Essays
they have outperformed their counterparts in the
Control Group had they written this test on the
Feature Essay # Exper. Group Control Group
computer?
(2) Would a less complex, micro-based word-
Content 1 3.85 3.43
2 3.85 3.69
processing program have resulted in a stronger
3 3.50 3.94 performance from the Experimental Group? Did
4 3.94 3.96 our mainframe facilities require too great a focus
5 3.60 3.99 on the mechanics of handling software and hard-
6 4.30 4.21 ware?

Organization 1 3.99 3.40 (3) Was the absence of a significant difference

2 3.90 3.70 in writing quality between the two groups due to
3 3.44 3.89 the fact that instruction is more critical than the
4 4.00 3.75
5 3.80 4.08
writing medium as a factor affecting change? In
6 4.10 4.36 other words, did the relative uniformity of instruc-
tion across the eight sections produce relatively
Sent. Struc. 1 3.82 3.46
2 3.64 3.80
uniform results in the two groups?
3 3.26 3.93 (4) Finally, and perhaps most important, was
4 4.10 3.90 the absence of a significant difference between the
5 3.53 4.06 two groups owing largely to the fact that a single
6 4.06 4.30
semester using word-processing is not sufficient
Diction 1 3.85 3.59 time to produce improvement in essay writing?
2 3.56 3.86 We believe this to be the case. Writing habits and
3 3.31 3.90
patterns of college freshmen are probably too well
4 3.91 3.89
5 3.45 4.01
established to be changed by a single semester. It
seems reasonable to assume that more than one
6 4.06 4.31
semester is needed to become fully comfortable
Mechanics 1 3.05 3.23
2 3.17 3.54
with the new medium. It is equally reasonable to
assume that more than one semester is needed to
3 2.80 3.63
4 3.45 3.59 use fully the resources of word processing for
5 2.68 3.66 revision - the kind of revision that goes beyond
6 3.37 3.80
words and phrases and is more substantive than
cosmetic (Pufahl, 1984). While teachers in our
study coached students in how to revise an essay
performance in and attempted to show them how to use word
an experimental
man using microcomputers, processing to make substantial changes in a text is-
findings. changes affecting content and organization - it
Repeated measures analysis revealed dissimilar may take more than a semester for such instruc-
growth patterns for the two groups - a linear tion to have a positive impact on the writing
pattern for the Control Group and a curvilinear process.
pattern for the Experimental Group. We are not Regarding writing apprehension, we found no
prepared to comment on the significance of this significant difference between the two groups.
difference. Is curvilinearity a generalizable condi- Once again, the Cross and Curey study, which
tion for new users of word processing or is it could not establish a reduction of writing appre-
unique to the single situation? Replication in this hension in its experimental group, is supported by
area seems desirable. our findings. On the other hand, the introduction
Results obtained in the area of writing per- of word processing did not increase writing appre-
formance lead us to a number of questions. hension for students in the Experimental Group,
(1) Despite what we believed were cogent despite the fact that these students, unlike their

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 100 MILTON TEICHMAN AND MARILYN PORIS

peers in the Control Group, had to learn

acknowlege word
the outstanding teaching and research
processing in a short space of time of
contributions and had colleagues:
the following to Profes-
produce computer-written essays on a
sors Joseph strict
Belanger, Sydnatime
Byrne, Janice Casey,
schedule. Donna Croshier, John Hunter, Robert Lewis, and
The question of time seems relevant to writing Marian McGillicutty.
apprehension as it is to writing performance,
especially since apprehension for the task - References
learning the skill of word processing - can be an Bean, J. C. "Computerized Word-processing as Aid to
intervening factor. Does it take more than a Revision." College Composition and Communication, 34
semester to experience the convenience and time- (1983), 146-48.
Bridwell, Lillian S., P. R. Nancarrow, and D. Ross. "The
saving nature of word processing in a way that
Writing Process and the Writing Machine: Current
would significantly reduce writing anxiety? If, as Research on Word Processors Relevant to the Teaching of
the results suggest, pre-existing writing skills and Composition." In New Directions in Composition Re-
writing anxiety are too well established to be search. Ed. Richard Beach and Lillian S. Bridwell. New

impacted significantly in one semester, perhaps York: The Guilford Press, 1984, pp. 381-98.
more time is needed to generate change. Again, a Chew, Charles R. Computers in the English Classroom:
Promises and Pitfalls. Urbana, Illinois: National Council
study of longer duration than ours, or a longi-
of Teachers of English, 1984.
tudinal inquiry of the study subjects, is called for. Coffman, William E. "On the Reliability of Ratings of Essay
Responses to a questionnaire given to students Examinations in English." Research in the Teaching of
in the Experimental Group at the end of the English, 5 (1971), 24-36.
semester showed that a large majority (87%) Collier, R. "The Word Processor and Revision Strategies."
College Composition and Communication, 34 (1983),
enjoyed using the computer for writing essays 149-55.
(Teichman, 1985). Typical comments included: "I Cooper, Charles R. "Holistic Evaluation of Writing." I
cannot say whether the computer has helped my Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Ed
writing, but it has made both the course and the Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana, Illinois:
National Council of Teachers of English, 1977, pp. 3-31.
writing assignments more enjoyable." Another
Cross, John A. and Bob J. Curey. "The Effect of Wor
student wrote: "The use of the computer makes the Processing on Writing." Paper presented at the Mid-Yea
course more interesting." Another said: "I feel that Meeting of the American Society for Information Science,
my writing may improve because I really enjoy Bloomington, Indiana, May, 1984. ERIC Document E
using the computer." Yet another was equally 247921.

positive: "I must say that my overall attitude Daiute, C. A. "The Computer as Stylus and Audience."
towvard writing has improved. I look forward to,
or at least don't dread, writing essays." Such
representative comments cannot be seen as unim-
portant.
Though our study could not demonstrate signi-
ficant improvement in essay-writing or reduced
writing anxiety for a one-semester period as a
result of computer intervention, the enthusiastic
response of most students using word processing
is for us an important reason to encourage com-
puter use in our writing program. If the computer
makes writing a less onerous, more satisfying
experience for many students, there is at least the
possibility that improvement in writing will follow.
Positive attitudes generally lead to positive results.
Acknowledgements
This study was made possible through generous
support from Marist College. The authors wish to
College Composition and Communication, 34 (1983),
134-45.
Daly, J. A. and M. D. Miller. "The Empirical Development
an Instrument to Measure Writing Apprehension." R
search in the Teaching of English, 9 (1975a), 242-49.
Daly, J. A. and M. D. Miller. "Further Studies in Writi
Apprehension: SAT Scores, Success Expectations, Wil
ingness to Take Advanced Courses, and Sex Differences
Research in the Teaching of English, 9 (1975b), 250-56.
Daly, J. A. and W. Shamo. "Writing Apprehension a
Occupational Choice." Journal of Occupational Psycho
ogy, 49 (1976), 55-56.
Daly, J. A. and Shamo, W. "Academic Decisions as a
Function of Writing Apprehension." Research in th
Teaching of English, 12 (1978), 119-26.
Fagan, William T., Charles R. Cooper, and Julie M. Jense
Measures for Research and Evaluation in the Englis
Language Arts. Urbana, Illinois: National Council o
Teachers of English, 1975.
Feldman, P. R. "Personal Computers in a Writing Class
Perspectives in Computing, 4 (1984), 2-8.
Forseth, Roger. "Converting Freshman English to Wor
Processing: A Case History." Paper presented at th

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 EFFECTS OF WORD PROCESSING ON WRITING 101

Meeting of the UCLA Conference on "Computers and

of the Writing Apprehension Test." Paper presented at the
Writing: New Directions in Teaching and Research," Annual
Los Conference of the Eastern Communication Asso-
Angeles, CA, May 1985. ERIC Document ED 263604.ciation, Ocean City, MD, April 1980.
Gollan, Antonie. "The Case Against the Classroom Com- Lynn V. and Wendy T. Greene. "The Computer-
Sadler,
puter." Consumers Research, 67 (1984), 20-22. assisted Composition Movement." The Computer-Assisted
Harris, Jeanette. "Student Writers and Word Processing: A
Composition Journal, 1 (1986), i-xi.
Preliminary Evaluation." College Composition andSchwartz,
Com- Helen J. Interactive Writing: Composition With
munication, 36 (1985), 323-30. Word Processing. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston,
Hawisher, Gail E. "Studies in Word Processing." Computers
1985.
and Composition, 4, 1 (1986), 6-31. Schwartz, Laurence J. "Teaching Writing in the Age of the
Hertz, Robert M. "Problems of Computer-Assisted Instruc-
Word Processor and Personal Computer." Educational
tion in Composition." The Computing Teacher, 11 (1983),
Technology, 23 (1983), 33-35.
62-64.
Schwartz, M. "Computers and the Teaching of Writing."
Larson, Richard B. "Arguing for Computer-based Composi-
Educational Technology, 22 (1982), 27-29.
tion Instruction." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
Stine, Linda J. "Answers that Raise Questions: Report on a
of the Conference on College Composition and Commu- Survey of Computer Use in Composition Instruction."
nication, New York, N.Y., March 1984. ERIC Document Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
ED 246480.
Council of Teachers of English, Philadelphia, PA, Novem-
Pufahl, J. "Response to Richard M. Collier, 'The Word
ber 1985. ERIC Document ED 267398.
Processor and Revision Strategies.'" College Composition
Teichman, Milton, "What College Students Say About Word
and Communication, 35 (1984), 91. Processing." Perspectives in Computing, 5 (1985), 43-48.
Richmond, V. P. and F. Dickson. "Two Studies of the Validity

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
102 MILTON TEICHMAN AND MARILYN PORIS

APPENDIX A

ANALYTIC SCALE

GRAMMAR
SENTENCE PUNCTUATION
SCORES CONTENT ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE DICTION SPELLING

HIGH A significant Essay planned so Sentences Distinctive: Clarity and

7-6 central idea that it progresses by skillfully fresh precise, effectiveness of
clearly defined, clearly ordered and constructed economical, expression
and supported necessary stages, and (unified, and idiomatic promoted by
with concrete, developed with coherent, consistent use of
substantial, originality and forceful, standard
and consistent consistent attention effectively grammar,
relevant detail to proportion and varied) punctuation, and
emphasis; paragraphs spelling
coherent, unified,
and effectively
developed;
transitions between

paragraphs explicit
and effective

MID Central idea Plan and method of Sentences Appropriate: Clarity and
5-3 apparent but essay apparent but correctly clear and effectiveness of
trivial, or trite, not consistently constructed idiomatic expression
or too general; fulfilled; developed but lacking weakened by
supported with with only occasional distinction occasional
concrete disproportion or deviations from
detail, but inappropriate standard
detail that is emphasis; paragraphs grammar,
occasionally unified, coherent, punctuation and
repetitious, usually effective in spelling
irrelevant, or their development;
sketchy transitions between
paragraphs clear but
abrupt, mechanical
or monotonous

LOW Central idea Plan and purpose of Sentences not Inappropriate Communication
2-1 lacking, or essay not apparent, unified, vague, obscured by
confused, or undeveloped or incoherent, unidiomatic, frequent
unsupported developed with fused, or deviations from
with concrete irrelevance, incomplete, substandard standard
and relevant redundancy, or monotonous grammar,
detail inconsistency; or childish punctuation, and
paragraphs spelling
incoherent, not
unified, or
undeveloped;
transitions between
paragraphs unclear
or ineffective

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 EFFECTS OF WORD PROCESSING ON WRITING 103

APPENDIX B

STUDENT I.D.

COLLEGE WRITING, CORE 106 - ESSAY RATING

SHEET

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Athesis
substantially 4
developed
(content)

2. Logical
organization

3. Varied and
forceful
sentence 4
structure

4. Precise,
economical,
and idiomatic 4
diction

5. Correctness in
spelling,
punctuation, J
grammar and
documentation

General Comment:
John:
Satisfactory performance in sentence structure, diction,
and mechanics - but note serious weaknesses in content
and organization.
(1) Your content is weakened by insufficient support of
your thesis. Provide illustrative detail.
(2) Regarding organization, note that your opening
paragraph promises a plan that you do not follow in
your paper.

This content downloaded from 103.251.180.1 on Mon, 06 Feb 2017 04:01:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms