Computers and Composition 15, 347-371(1998) ISSN 8765-4615 © 1998 Ablex Publishing Corporation All rights of reproduction reserved
The Mysterious Disappearance of Word Processing
BERNARD SUSSER
Doshisha Women’s Junior College
As an instructional technology, word processing has almost disappeared from accounts of writing with computers, but this article argues that most student writers have never used word processing in a meaningful sense, so that far from “disappearing/’ word processing has not yet appeared. Experimental research reports and published practitioner accounts are examined to show that in hardly any cases can the subjects or students be said to be using a word-processing package at anywhere near its full potential; this is true even in reports of so-called “experienced” users. To overcome this problem, the author used a heuristic device to encourage Japanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students to use word processing more fully, but the results showed little improvement in the students reported use of the functions of word processing. The conclusion draws on studies of computer use in the workplace to evaluate the results and discusses the need for fuller exploitation of word processing in writing instruction.
computers and efficiency computers and writing disappearance EFL heuristic device word processing
In the twentieth century, it takes a special kind of courage to continue to use a particular technology once it is considered to be outmoded, even if that technology is more than adequate for the task at hand.
Michael Levy (1997, p.2)
The trope of disappearance has been powerful in modem composition and literary studies. Barthes and Foucault postulated the disappearance of the author; text itself became pixeled and desubstantiated (e.g., Balestri, 1988, pp. 16 ff.; Dorner, 1991, p. 15; Lanham, 1993, pp. 5, 75, 130). Familiar tools like pencils and pens became invisible (Chandler, 1995, pp. 27—28); then computers (Tornow, 1997, p. 15), word processing (Hawisher, LeBlanc, Moran, & Selfe, 1996, pp. 186, 239), and technology itself (Bruce & Hogan, 1988, pp. 269 ff.) disappeared. 0. B. Hardison (1989), going one step further, claimed that “the idea of humanity is changing so rapidly that it, too, can legitimately and without any exaggeration be said to be disappearing” (1989, p. 347). Many
Direct all correspondence to: Bernard Susser, English Department, Doshisha Women’s Junior College. Kado, Kyotanabe City, Kyoto Prefecture 610-0395, Japan. E-mail:
347 340 SUSSER
have pointed to computers and word processing as the culprits because they destroy our interior, alphabetized mental space” (Sanders, 1994, pp. 136, 146), or they create prose that “displays a charge with less central focus and less mental integrity,” so “the pristine power of original language is especially in danger of total oblivion” (Heim, 1987, p. 210).1 Gore Vidal (1984) claimed that “the idea of literature is being erased by the word processor” (p. 20) while William Gass saw the computer and word processing as responsible for the “disappearance of human beings” (as cited in Sanders, 1994, p. 148).2 Even without the hyperbole, there is general agreement that from about 1989 the computers and writing (C&W) field moved its focus of attention from word processing to computer-mediated communication (CMC), hypertext, and other innovative forms of writing technology (Gerrard, 1995, pp. 283-284; Hawisher et al., 1996, pp. 86-187. 239; see also Hilligoss & Sclfe 1994, p. 340; Tuman, 1992, p. 57). This is confirmed by the rapid fall in the number of articles and presentations devoted to word processing3 Given the tremendous enthusiasm for writing with computers in the 1980s, this is surprising; two explanations have been offered. First, in Trent Batson’s words, the field had reached a “dead end” (as cited in Hawisher et al., 1996, p. 11) and was looking for something new. Driven by the rapid development of new technologies and supported by an increasing emphasis on the social aspects of writing, the C&W field launched itself into groupware, hypertext, and cyberspace, abandoning the “old-fashioned” (Davidson, 1996, p. 98) word processor. The inevitable result, as Marianne Phinney (1996) pointed out, was that “in classes where groupware is employed, word processing and the development of word processing skills take a back seat to the purposes for communication in interactions mediated within a computer environment” (p. 142). The second explanation is that by 1990 computer technology (including word-processing packages) had become ‘transparent’4 so
1For similar pronouncements see, for example, Sven Birkerts, 1994, pp. 122, 156 ff.; Daniel Chandler, 1987, 1995; Michael Heim, 1993, pp. 3 ff., 55 ff.; Stephen Talbott, 1995, pp. 186 ff. 2Barry Sanders (1996, p. 148) claimed that Gass said this in 1991 but his reference is for a book review Gass published in 1988; the words Sanders cited do not appear in this review (Gass, 1988). Further, the title of the review is “The Polemical Philosopher,” not “Human, All Too Human” (Sanders, 1995, p. 248). Where (If?) Gass said this is not important, because Sanders, who has thought long and hard (if not well) about computers and literacy, clearly believes it. 3To confirm this, I searched the ERIC on CD-ROM database (Nisc Disc) covering the period 1985 to December 1997. I used only the keyword word processing, which yielded many items on keyboarding instruction. CAI, etc., as well as works on computers and writing. Even so, the results were instructive: 1985, 258 items; 1986, 267; 1987, 251; 1988, 210; 1989, 245; 1990, 181; 1991, 161; 1992, 136; 1993, 103; 1994, 84; 1995, 74; 1996, 73; and 1997, 25. 4Here transparent means too familiar to be noticed, “simply presupposed” (Pennington. 1996, p. 40); it is in this sense that Johndan Johnson-Eilola (1997, p. 49) cited Jacques Ellul: “The ability to forget the machine is the ideal of technical perfection” (1964, p. 413). Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores (1986/1987, p. 164) used word processing in their discussion of transparency (see also Levy, 1997, pp. 184-185). Joan Tornow (1997) argued that “when a stand alone computer becomes networked, it’s as if it suddenly shifts from being opaque to being transparent” (p. 15). Haas (1996) uses transparent in this sense (e.g., p. xi) even though her main argument is that technology is not transparent because it affects writing (e.g., p. 34; see also Haas & Neuwirth, 1994, pp. 321-323). See also Turkel’s (1995) discussion of the “cultural shift in the meaning of transparency” (p. 42). Disappearance of Word Processing 349
it was no longer an issue; it had, to borrow Hardison’s (1989) trope, “disappeared.”5 This came about, Myron Tuman (1993) argued, just because word processing “triumphed completely” (p. 49); its very success as an “effortless, transparent support for both the theory and practice of writing as process” meant that word processing “did not raise important pedagogical and methodological issues” (p. 49). Here, I argue that word processing did not disappear or become transparent but rather never appeared in any meaningful sense. There are many definitions of word processing (see, e.g., Winograd & Flores, 1986/1987, pp. 5-6); Martha Pennington’s (1996) will do: Word processing “allows many different kinds of modifications to written text before or after saving, such as deletion, insertion, and movement of pieces of text as long as several paragraphs” (p. 31). Word processing cannot be defined more rigorously because of the great variety of word-processing packages with different features and structures (Bridwell-Bowles, 1989, p. 83; Haas, 1996, p. 51; Hawisher, 1989, p.57; Pennington, 1996, pp. 43 ff.). Robert Lucky (1989) even argued that because technology develops so rapidly, it is hard to say anything meaningful about word processing (pp. 164-165). Terminology problems are compounded when some researchers (e.g., Van Haalen, 1990) seem to think that any software that allows users to input text is a “word processor,” (see pp. 11-12); Lillian Bridwell, Geoffrey Sire, and Robert Brooke (1985) and others even “use computer composing’ to mean whatever [participants] did while they were working with the word-processing systems, even though several of them continued to use paper for planning and some drafting” (p. 179). Further, computers are used for writing in a range from the experienced users’ full employment of the software’s functions for planning, revising, editing, and formatting to basic typing, in which the word-processing package functions as a “slick typewriter” (Kellogg, 1994, p. 162): even the same software may be used in quite different ways by different users (see Benesch, 1987; Bridwell et al., 1985, pp. 190 ff.). Christina Haas (1996) argued that word processing is the “most generic of computer writing tools” (p. 77) because the functions of a word-processing package are built into most CMC software, but when people write e-mail online, participate in MOOs, or use CACD (computer-assisted class discussion) software, they make comparatively little use of word processing functions.6 Even in formal writing, “truly written composition” (Ong, 1982, p. 95) that requires “planning, care, and organization” (Elbow, 1996, p. 688), many writers make minimal use of word-processing package functions (see, e.g., Thiesmeyer, 1989, pp. 85-86).
5James Kalmbach (1996) documented many remarkable parallels between the experimental introduction of typewriters into schools in the 1930s and the adoption of computers today; research on typewriters in classrooms “disappeared” along with the typewriters themselves (p. 64; see also Kalmbach, 1997, pp. 104 ff.). 6This claim is based on my reading of the literature and personal observation; it has not been established experimentally one way or the other as far as I know. Margaret Riel (1990) found that sixth graders wrote better compositions to peers on a computer network than for teachers on an exam (p. 261; see also Cohen & Riel, 1989) and Levy (1997) claimed that for second language learners “great care is taken in the construction of the text” (p. 171). On the other hand, Simeon Yates (1996, p.35) noted that CMC writers do not take advantage of the opportunities provided by the medium. See Lourdes Ortega (1997) for a review of the research. 350 SUSSER
My first task in this article is to support the previously described claim that word processing in a meaningful sense has not really appeared in writing instruction despite the great enthusiasm for writing with computers; this I do with a literature review, looking particularly at studies of advanced or experienced users. Second, I present the results of an experimental use of a heuristic and pedagogy designed to encourage students to use the word-processing packages fully. Finally, I use recent research on computer productivity to explain why word processing never really appeared and suggest what this-means for C&W pedagogy.
RESEARCH ON WORD PROCESSING
Before starting, I should anticipate the objections of readers who, being familiar with the vast literature on computers and writing as well as being practitioners in the field themselves, might be inclined to dismiss my argument as casuistry if not just plain silly. Certainly there was great enthusiasm for word processing in the 1980s, particularly because of a perceived reciprocity with process-based writing pedagogies; Carolyn Kirkpatrick, writing in 1987, went so far as to say that “I simply don’t see how the process approach is feasible for most teachers at the basic writing level without use of computers” (p. 38).7 Numerous research reports and practitioner accounts described how word-processing packages affected both the writing process and the written product (Herrmann, 1991, pp. 153-160). Concerning the research on word processing, I summarized the conclusions of existing surveys in 1994 (Susser, 1994b), but more have been published since that article was submitted (eg., Haas & George, 1996; Pennington, 1996, pp. 31- 67; Reed, 1996; Snyder, 1993b). The consensus is that much, if not most, of the research is not good. Speaking of research on the effects of computers in education generally, Edward Miller, former editor of the Harvard Education Letter, has been quoted as saying, “Most knowledgeable people agree that most of the research isn’t valid. It’s so flawed it shouldn’t even be called research. Essentially, it’s just worthless” (as cited in Oppenheimer, 1997, p. 47). The research on computers and writing is no exception, providing little grounds for establishing any effects of using word processing.8 Whatever may be said about experimental research, practitioner accounts (the term practitioner is North’s, 1987) describe a variety of effects, some beneficial and some
7See Bernard Susser (l994a, pp. 32-34) for an explanation of writing process terminology, and Karen Jostad (1988, p. 32), Marjorie Montague (1990. pp. 39 ff.), Pierre Pelletier (1992, p. 252), Irene Thomas (1985, p. 2), and David Thomas (1989, p. 135) for the association of word processing with process-based writing pedagogies. Pennington (1996, pp. 52-53) surveyed the research on word processing and process-oriented instruction. 8In criticizing research on CALL (computer-assisted language learning), Carol Chapelle (1990) pointed out that results are difficult to interpret because (a) descriptions “do not account for the details of student- computer interaction,” (b) general descriptions of CALL activities fail “to describe what students actually do,” and (c) the descriptors for labeling CALL activities “have not yet specified a precise language (or formalism) for discussing different CALL activities in terms common to all CALL and classroom activities” (pp. 204- 205). Chappelle asked, “How quiz-like is a quiz?” (p. 205); in other words, terms describing classroom activities such as quiz or word processing must be defined more rigorously before they can be used in research. Disappearance of Word Processing 351
detrimental, that using word-processing packages seems to have on the writing process and product (surveyed by Pennington, 1996, pp. 17-30). That the introduction of computers should have some effect is consistent with the widespread belief that “technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning” (Winner, 1986, p. 6; see also Bowers, 1988, pp. 27 ff.; Haas, 1996, pp. 3-47; Postman, 1992, pp. 13 ff.). Using computers in the classroom may have affected writing for four reasons. One is the “inevitable ‘Hawthorne effect’ by which any innovation in a work situation initially raises productivity and morale” (Thiesmeyer, 1989, p. 85; see also Kellogg, 1994, pp. 151 ff.). This accounts for reports emphasizing positive effects such as longer essays and more revision (as summarized in Pennington, 1996, pp. 31 ff.). On the other hand, problems caused by the introduction of this complicated technology explain why many teachers reported negative effects from using word-processing packages (e.g., Crafton, 1996; Dowling, 1994; Kellogg & Mueller, 1989, pp. 7-8; Sudol, 1991), as Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass (1996) pointed out, “technical problems have social consequences” (p. 214), in this ease turning students against writing. A third reason is that the design of a given word-processing package can affect the user’s writing; in other words, “system characteristics can have significant impact on writing processes” (Hayes, 1996, p. 11; see also Susser, 1994b, pp. 28-29). The fourth reason computers may affect students’ writing is that the computer is a “writing tool that functions in a learning environment” (Zeni, 1990, p. x; see also pp. 79, 93); it is a technology “embedded in social practices” (Greenleaf, 1992, p 33; see also Cochran-Smith, Paris, & Kahn, 1991; Greenleaf, 1994; Miller & Olson, 1994; Riel, 1989, 1994; Sheingold, 1987, p. 207). This concept suggests that the effects attributed to using word processing in the practitioner accounts may have been the result of changed learning environments and teaching practices, or the result, in Gail Hawisher’s (1989) words, of “the interaction of technology with the culture in which it exists” (p. 64, see also Mehan, 1989, pp. 13, 19). Further, the “rhetoric of technology” (Hawisher & Selfe, 1991) or “mythinformation” (Winner, 1986, pp. 98 ff.) may have led practitioners to attribute characteristics to word processing not necessarily unique to that technology. For example, the literature enthuses ad nauseam on the “fluidity” word processing imparted to the writing process (e.g., Boiarsky, 1991; Catano, 1985; Mullins, 1988). Undoubtedly, many who had been writing by hand with pen or pencil found composing at the computer keyboard liberating; even so, it would be hard to prove that it was using word processing in a meaningful sense rather than the novelty effect of a new technology that made writing more “fluid.” Fluidity is an amorphous concept that tells us little about how writers are using word processing or, indeed, if they are using computers at all; Ernest Hemingway, for example, said that in comparison to the typewriter “if you use a pencil. . . it keeps it fluid longer so that you can improve it easier” (as cited in Chandler, 1995, p. 151). Consequently, neither experimental research nor practitioner accounts provide convincing proof that student writers were or are using word processing in a meaningful sense.
STUDENTS’ USE OF WORD-PROCESSING PACKAGES
Word-processing packages, like other software applications, are not easy to learn, as research on human-machine interaction (e.g., Carroll, 1990; Cross, 1990, pp. 47-48; Sulli- 352 SUSSER van, 1989, p. 21) has shown; indeed, it can be “highly stressful” for some (Herrmann, 1985a, p. 3; see also Dalton, Morocco, & Neale, 1988), particularly for EFL students (see, e.g., Scott & Stoller, 1996; Wallace, 1988). Further, as if the learning of any individual program were not difficult enough, students often must deal with a bewildering “topography” of mutually incompatible platforms, disk sizes and formats, software packages and versions, etc. (Reynolds & Lewis, 1997, p. 275). Even so, writing teachers have been reluctant to devote much class time to teaching computer use or the functions of word-processing packages. Barbara Griffin (1989), for example, blithely claimed that “teachers usually overestimate the amount of time required to acclimate students to the hardware…we spent virtually no class time on computer instruction” (p. 2), while Catherine Davidson and Alice Tomic (1994) boasted that “a new computer user can learn the basics of a word-processing programme in a few minutes” (p. 207).9 The results, needless to say, are dismal; although most studies of student use of word- processing packages do not reveal the level at which participants are using the hardware and software, occasional glimpses show that many, perhaps most students “simply do not master these skills [file management, cursor moves, block moves, delete, and restore text] well enough for us to cover the material we would cover if we stuck with hard copy” (Crew, 1989, p. 4). Stephen Bernhardt, Penny Edwards, and Patti Wojahn (1989, p. 121) reported that 22% of the students in their study were not yet comfortable with word processing at the end of a semester; Gordon Thomas (1993) stated that the 75-minute training session in his program teaches only the basic skills, so “the word-processing skills of most students appear to fossilize at a low level” (p. 190); Williamson complained that some of his students cannot reliably save a file seven weeks into the term (as cited in Magoto, 1995, p. 30). Many similar accounts of students’ inability or unwillingness to use even basic functions of word-processing packages can be found (e.g., Bridwell et al., 1985, pp. 188-190; Cross, 1990; Freedman & Clarke, 1988, pp. 124 ff.; Nichols, 1986, pp. 91 ff.; Herrmann, 1985b, pp. 10, 17; Sloane, 1987; Strickland, 1987a, 1987b, 1989, pp. 10 ff.). Bruce Tone and Dorothy Winchester (1988, p. 2) reported that children were not getting enough time-on-task to become comfortable with even the simplest functions of word-processing packages, while some experts (Miller-Souvincy & Souviney, 1987) claimed that “elementary students can work effectively for a whole year using only 4 or 5 commands” (p. 8). Evelyn Fella (1989) stopped teaching “the more sophisticated func-
9The amount of time spent on training students to use a word-processing package is not usually reported; when it is, we see that most authors boast of how little time they spend on this: Hansel Burley (1994) required “only fifteen minutes of formal classroom training” (p. 9). Carole McAllister and Richard Louth (1988), “two hours” (p. 421); John Pufahl (1984), “ten minutes” (p. 93); Michael Williamson and Penny Pence (1989), “one-half hour” (p. 103). Ruth Kurth (1987, p. 16) found WORDPERFECT not difficult to learn; Bailey Shurbutt (1987, p. 39) needed only an hour plus a handout for this package. For Lillian Bridwell-Bowles, Parker Johnson, and Steven Brehe (1987), two hours was enough to get started with WORDSTAR (p. 86), although Bridwell et al. (1985, p. 174) mentioned a 2-week course for the same software; Anne Wright (1987, p. 27) needed only five minutes for APPLEWRITER (see also Wright, 1988, p. 37), and Haas (1996) claimed that “practiced users of technology…tend not to need much training on word processing” (p. 79). Of course, some writing instructors devote considerable time to word-processing instruction; Tony Dierckins (1994), for example, reported training in word processing taking 20% of composition course class time (pp. 154-155). Disappearance of Word Processing 353
tions,” because “few students ever used [them] when editing their papers” (p. 3).10 Another study of ESL writers found that many students did not exploit the computer’s potential for reorganization of their writing; for them the spelling checker was the major attraction (Al-Hazmi & Scholfield, 1997, pp. 118-120). In short, “students do not generally take advantage of the computer’s capabilities for revision” (Phinney, 1989, p. 84; see also Phinney, 1996, p. 151).11 This failure to “take advantage of the computer’s capabilities” characterizes even so-called experienced users. Studies by Ronald Owston, Sharon Murphy, and Herbert Wideman (1991, 1992; see also Owston, 1993) investigated “the impact of word processing on the writing of middle school students highly experienced in working with computers” (1991, p. 70; see also pp. 81, 84-85; 1992, pp. 254-256). Their data showed that many students did not make use of even basic functions of word-processing packages (1992, p. 261); one of the three types of these experienced users is called the low-tech user who “either minimally used or made no use at all of the technological advantages of the computer” (1992, p. 267). Chris Breese, Anita Jackson, and Terry Prince (1996) who studied secondary students with unlimited access to word-processing packages, were highly enthusiastic about the quality of writing produced (p. 85, see also Peacock & Breese, 1990), but tell us nothing about the level at which students used the functions of word- processing packages. The computers to which these students had unlimited access was a Cambridge Z88 laptop that “displayed six lines of text” and came with the word-processing package PIPEDREAM, “not an easy program to use,” requiring, for example, the manipulation of 8 keys to move a block of text (Breese et al., 1996, p. 71). Although we might applaud the participants of this experiment for willingly writing and rewriting under such adverse (by today’s standards) conditions, we can suspect that use word processing functions was not intense. Other researchers working with “students who had considerable experience using word- processing systems” (Joram, Woodruff, Lindsay, & Bryson, 1990, p. 57; see also Joram, Woodruff, Bryson, & Lindsay, 1992, p. 187) found in their test of editing commands that “there was only one instance when a student made full use of the computer” (p. 61); even the graduate students they looked at for the sake of comparison had “fail[ed] to take full advantage of computers with word-processing programs after several years of experience with them” (p. 68). Ilana Snyder (1993a) studied secondary
10Another problem is the definition of basic as opposed to sophisticated functions. For Fella (1989), apparently, anything beyond “double-spacing, underlining, and centering” (p. 3) is sophisticated; Michele Opack and Barbara Perushek (1986), sophisticated text manipulations are “copying text, deleting blocks, indenting, and using boldface functions” (p. 34). 11There is not enough space here to go into the important issue of typing or keyboarding skills. There is a range of opinion in the literature originating from the belief that “typing skill is not required for successful word processing” (Brown, 1986, p. 12; see also Gerlach, 1987; Peterson, 1993, p. 64) to those scholars who pointed out “a degree of constraint placed on...writing due to inadequacies in…typing ability” (Dowling, 1994, p. 229; see also Dalton & Hannafin, 1987, p. 341; Snyder, 1994, p. 152; Van Haalen & Bright, 1993, pp. 314,322, 324). Williamson and Pence (1989, pp. 95-96) offered a tortured argument intended to show that a lack of keyboarding skills is an advantage! Even Opack and Perushek (1986), who emphasized the importance of training in word processing, designed their word-processing course and tested carefully “to eliminate problems with students whose typing skills are minimal” (p. 34). 354 SUSSER students with “more than minimal word-processing skills” (p. 10); even so, “most found that using computers made writing more difficult” (1994, p. 150) and over the months of the course, the students were constantly learning and helping each other with the functions of their word- processing package (e.g., p. 153). Edward Wolfe, Sandra Bolton, Brian Feltovich, and Art Bangert (1996) identified students less or more comfortable and experienced with writing with word- processing packages but their questionnaire (pp. 281-282) asked nothing about familiarity with word-processing functions. Glenda Conway’s (1995) study did not look at word-processing skills, but the group she studied included both a student “with exceptionally strong word-processing skills” and one who “consistently experienced difficulties with computer commands” (p. 85). Conway’s study provides another example of the wide variation that usually exists even in the same classroom (see also Joram et al., 1990, p. 63). Among studies of postsecondary students Randall Nichols (1986, p. 91) reported that only one of his five participants ever used block moves. Alexander Friedlander and Mike Markel (1990) and Markel (1994) studied “experienced word-processing students” who had owned and used computers for at least three years but concluded that many participants did ‘not report substantial word-processing experience’ (1994, p. 53) and “were not comfortable with [Macintoshes] as writing tools” (1994, p. 55). Other students used their Macs regularly for writing, revised on screen, and believed that using the computer improved their writing (1994, p. 52-53), but we are not told how or to what extent they used the functions of their word-processing packages.12 Richard Collier and Clifford Werier (1994) looked closely at the extent their participants used the functions of word-processing packages. Although all three participants “had been using the computer as their exclusive means of text production for at least 3 years” (p. 48), they “did not access many of the advanced features of the word-processing package” (p. 54). Marianne Phinney and Sandra Khouri’s (1993) study of ESL writers included two participants “comfortable” with computers (p. 260); their data on what and how many functions students used show (see Table 6, p. 268), for example, that novice users made a few block moves but experienced users made none. Phinney and Khouri (1993) claimed that the participant most comfortable with the computer “showed the kind of profile we might expect from an experienced computer user” (p. 270); by this statement they seem to mean that he did a lot of revising on screen, not necessarily that he made much use of or was even knowledgeable about the functions of the word-processing package.13 In an EFL setting Olga Kehagia and Margaret Cox (1997) chose subjects who had considerable computer experience (p. 243), yet their case study subject was “unfamiliar with the functions of the commands available in the word-processing package” (p. 250). This review of the literature suggests that the term word processing has been used loosely, not to say irresponsibly. Although there must be many proficient users of word-
12 It is odd that in the 1990 article, the participants had “complete familiarity with the Macintosh’s word- processing software” (Priedlander & Market, p. 77), but in the 1994 article some of the same students did “not report substantial word-processing experience” (p. 53). 13WilIiam Goodrich Jones (1994) mentions a university faculty member, a heavy computer user, who “had never bothered to learn how to use the ‘find’ command in her word-processing program, so great was her reluctance to read the accompanying manual and so little her desire to take advantage of the options for textual control that the software offered” (p. 168). Disappearance of Word Processing 355
processing packages in schools and universities, the evidence suggests that we have little grounds for claiming that a person writing on a computer is using a word processing in any meaningful sense. Writing teachers have not devoted much time to teaching the skills of word-processing packages, nor have they reached any agreement on what level of skills are adequate. Researchers have for the most part ignored the important variable of the level of their participants’ skills with word-processing packages; those few studies that have looked specifically at experienced users have invalidated their own conclusions, given that the data they present show that many experienced users, in fact, cannot be said to be using word-processing packages in a meaningful sense.
AN EXPERIMENT WITH A WORD-PROCESSING HEURISTIC
Like many writing teachers in the late 1980s, I began to use word processing in my writing classes because of my enthusiasm for this marvelous tool; however, it did not take long to see that most students were not taking advantage of the functions of word-processing packages for writing and revision. From 1995, I began to use a checklist of key functions as a heuristic device to encourage students’ use of word-processing packages. This checklist, suggested by Nim-Yu Kitty Li (1994), asked students if they had used various functions such as block moves, undo, spelling checker, etc. (see Appendix). The assumption was that having students complete this checklist at the end of each class would make them aware of the many computer functions they might be using and encourage them to discover and exploit more fully the functions of the word-processing package to facilitate their editing and revision. Although students’ responses to this checklist provided the data presented in Table I, the purpose of this checklist was not to collect data but to intervene in the students’ adaptation to word processing. This report is not intended to be a study of students’ writing on computers based on keystroke capture, protocol analyses, comparisons of drafts, etc. One assumption I made, shared by most people in the computers and writing field, is that word processing make writing and revising easier. Another assumption, apparently not so widely shared, was that proficiency using word-processing packages is a prerequisite to ease of writing and revision. The checklist was a heuristic device to encourage greater awareness of and interest in the functions of word- processing packages, used in tandem with a process approach, conferencing, and written feedback. The information from the checklists is self-reported, reflecting the students’ perceptions of their use of word processing. I assume that students who reported frequent use of block moves did in fact make more block moves than students who reported infrequent use of this function, but I do not have keystroke capture data to verify this assumption. This study was conducted at two post-secondary institutions in Japan: a women’s junior college and a four-year coeducational university. The DUET class taught during the 1995 school year, was a year-long, advanced English composition course for second-year junior college English majors; the students chose this section from a variety of choices (it was not the first choice for all students). The word-processing package was DUET, a bilingual (Japanese/English) NEC-DOS word-processing package (Just System, version 1.3, 1990), used on a 32-bit NEC PC- 9801FS. This version of DUET did not use a mouse; most commands required use of the escape key to open a window of function choices, which were then selected by keystrokes or the arrow keys, although users could take advantage 356 SUSSER of keyboard shortcuts using the control key. The course was conducted by the conferencing method, following the principle that when students use word-processing packages, they more readily accept the instructor’s demands for revision (Heilker, 1992, p. 62; Li, 1990, p. 5; Liechty, 1989, p. 19; Teles, 1988, pp. 296-297; Zeni, 1990, pp. 130, 133; see also Pennington & Brock, 1992). While I conferenced with individual students on their drafts, some students worked on their essays at computers; some of my time, especially at the beginning of the year, was spent troubleshooting. Although many students had taken or were taking a word-processing course and were familiar with ICHITARO, a Japanese word-processing package from Just System almost identical to DUET in looks and operation, I required them to spend the first two or three weeks working through a homemade set of worksheets (Do DUET) that introduced the software’s main functions and operations. Near the end of each class, I distributed the checklist and asked students to complete it. Although I did not look at the checklists during the course of the year, I did regularly encourage students to use more functions and frequently taught new functions to individual students. The WORD class was the same advanced composition course I taught in 1996 with three major differences. First, our computer labs were renovated for the 1996 school year so that students had access to Microsoft WORD for WINDOWS 95 (version 7.0, 1995), a bilingual (Japanese/English) word-processing package (Microsoft Japan); the new hardware was the Fujitsu FMV-5 120 D5 (Pentium 120). Second, for reasons explained later, during the first few classes, students were taught only the most basic functions, such as how to name and save files. Only after they had finished their first drafts were they given an introductory training program (Click and Learn, designed by my colleague Dr. Jill Robbins); this program taught a number of main functions such as block moves, highlighting, and deletion, etc. Third, I looked at the checklists each week after class, making note of any questions and anomalies; the following week I spoke individually to each student on whose checklist I had made a note as well as encouraging all students to make more use of the functions of the word-processing package. In other respects, this class was the same as the DUET class: students had taken, or were taking concurrently, courses in computer skills using Microsoft WORD; the course was taught by the conferencing method, and so on. The NISUS class, of which I taught two sections in 1996, was a required business writing course (two sections) for senior English majors at a coeducational university. The software was NISUSWRITER (Paragon Concepts, Japanese version by Mercury Software, 1995), used on a Macintosh 6100/6OAV. Students used worksheets to learn the main functions and formatting features of the software. I followed the same procedure for the checklists described previously for the WORD class. This class was also taught by the conferencing method but with more emphasis on formatting and other aspects of Business English, as taught in Japan. Figures 1 through 3 show the average function use per person in these three classes. The Japanese school year runs from April to January, with about 25 class meetings (90 minutes, once a week) per year. The calendars of the two schools were slightly different and there are some days for which no data exist, either because of a school holiday or because I forgot to distribute the checklist. The figures show 24 weeks (A though X). Both the junior college sophomores and the university seniors were in their graduating years and were absent frequently because of job- hunting, as is common in Japan. Function use is measured by activity: uses of the functions of word-processing packages reported on the Disappearance of Word Processing 357
Figure 1. Average function use per person in DUET class (maximum possible: 30/week)
Figure 2. Average function use per person in WORD class (maximum possible: 30/week)
checklist. The contents of the checklists differed slightly to accommodate the different platforms but included items such as “help,” “block move,” “new function,” etc. (see Appendix). For each item, the students could check “often” (5 points), “sometimes” (3), or “never” (0), but students were given one point if present even if they had no “activity” that day; 0 was given for absence. The maximum for the DUET and WORD classes was 30 points, and 25 points for the NISUS class; the scale has not been adjusted. Figure 1 shows the DUET class. The average use of functions clusters around 5 or 6 and the maximum is 8; this is disappointing considering the maximum possible is 30. My conclusion was that the checklist was a failure as a heuristic because there was little reported use of the functions of the word-processing package. Analysis of responses for each function shows that use of some functions followed the course rhythm. For example, the spelling checker and CORRECT GRAMMAR (WordStar International, Inc., 1990; CORRECT GRAMMAR for WINDOWS, ver. 2.11, Softkey International Inc., 1994) were used frequently but not constantly, reflecting my advice that students should not use them until they had completed at least one revised draft. The “help” function was not used much except in June when many students were printing for the first time or doing major editing on their first essays) and in the last few classes, when students were doing new things connected with laying out and printing their projects. Fewer than half of the students reported block moves on any given day; this may reflect the fact that on that day some were writing first drafts while others were revising. Fewer than half the students reported use of the control key on any given day; I seldom saw a student use the control key for any 358 SUSSER
Figure 3. Average function use per person for NISUS classes (maximum possible: 25/week)
purpose. In general, students confined themselves to surface editing (monitor monitoring), using only the backspace, delete, and arrow keys. The WORD class is shown in Figure 2. As mentioned previously, in this class the students were shown functions of the word-processing package only after they finished their first drafts. Borrowing Karin Mårdsjö’s (1996, p. 307) broad view of interface, I took advantage of WORD’S bewildering display of icons, task bars, rulers, and so on, to pique students’ curiosity about the functions of the word-processing package. Even though students had not been trained in the use of functions for the first few weeks (i.e., until they finished their first drafts), I was still collecting the checklist each week, so all students could do was check “never” for most questions. But, this had the effect of making them curious, so, in the comments section many students wrote “What is a block move?” or “How do I use the spelling check?” Each week, I answered their questions but told them not to worry about advanced functions until they had finished their first draft. This explains why the chart shows some use of functions for the first two weeks (the students were learning how to name and save files) and then drops to almost zero for the third week, when most students were typing their first drafts without concern for revision activities. Function use picked up from the fourth week when some students had finished their first drafts and were going through the training program. Even so, despite this attempt to make students more interested in using functions, and despite the individual attention I gave to their questions and problems on the checklist each week, the results, as shown on the chart, show the same rhythms as the DUET class, and the level of use was just as disappointing.
Figure 4a. Heaviest function user in DUET class (maximum possible: 30/week) Disappearance of Word Processing 359
The two sections of the NISIS class are shown in Figure 3; they were identical in content and teaching method and, in fact, the average use of functions per person was almost the same for both sections. The use of computer functions was higher for these Mac classes than for the DOS or WINDOWS programs described previously: the annual average per person for the DUET class was 85.6; for WORD, 93.6; and for the two NISIS sections 109.1 and 123.1. One explanation for this is that the NISIS class was a business writing class and
Figure 4b. Average function use per person in WORD classes (maximum possible: 25/week)
Figure 4c. Heaviest function user in NISUS class #1 (maximum possible: 25/week)
Figure 4d. Heaviest function user in NISUS class #2 (maximum possible: 25/week) 360 SUSSER
TABLE 1 Heaviest Function Users
Class Weeks Present* Average Score Class Average per week present DUET 10(17) 10.2 5.0 WORD 13(19) 10.1 4.9 NISUS(1) 16(20) 12.1 5.5 NISUS(2) 20(21) 15.1 5.9
Note:*the number in paranthesis is the number of weeks data was collected.
the students had to learn some advanced formatting functions such as tables.14 In any case, considering that the maximum daily score was 25 but the average was about 6, the results here were also disappointing. To confirm these results, I looked at the performance of the heaviest user of functions as self- reported in each class; the results are shown in Figures 4a-d and Table I. The charts show that the heavy users of computer functions outperformed their classmates—but by no means consistently. Table 1 shows that on average the heaviest users in the DUET and WORD classes averaged twice as much function activity as the class averages; the gap was even greater for the NISIS classes. These four individuals, in fact, did use computer functions heavily and showed interest in learning new functions, but their high scores may reflect a tendency to exaggerate their computer use.15 Finally, concerning the possible influence of gender, Table 2 shows a slight difference at the coeducational university with males reporting slightly more function use than females on average. This difference may reflect a real difference or may be simply the result of exaggerated reporting by males or understated reporting by females; the fact that females heavily outnumbered males also may have influenced the results. Aside from
14Dierckins (1994) argued that there is no significant difference between using a word-processing package on an IBM without WINDOWS and Macintoshes: however, laboratory studies have shown not only that commands are superior to mice, menus, and icons, but that users who have tried both tend to prefer commands (Landauer, 1995, p. 384 n. 9). In my classes, the DUET class used a command-style interface but both the WORD and NISIS classes used a graphical user interface. It may be, of course, simply that NISIS is designed better than WORD. Further, on the point raised by Cynthia Selfe and Richard Selfe (1994, pp. 489-490), all three packages provide menus in Japanese but retain English keystroke options, so that saving a file is done with control (or apple) 5, although the Japanese word printed in the pull-down window is hozon (save). Whether or not this forces students “to think at some level in English” (Selfe & Selfe, 1994, p. 490) remains to be proven, but in any case, is not a problem in a class for learning English. 15The most active user in the DUET class was a dynamic individual with excellent English ability; she had spent time in the United States and had used computers in junior high school. In the WORD class, the most active user was an energetic student whose English ability was weak but who had strong self-confidence. The most active user in the first NISIS class had excellent English and an outstanding attitude towards study; she had spent her junior year in New Zealand as an exchange student. The most active user in the second NISIS class was an above-average-but-not-exceptional student in terms of English ability and subject matter; however, he devoted much time to learning and using computer features. Disappearance of Word Processing 361
TABLE 2 Function Use by Gender in NISUS Classes
Number of Students Average Score Male 26 6.1 Female 45 5.4 Total 71 5.7
occasional complaints when things went wrong, there was little evidence of technophobia in any of the classes; many junior college students (females) chose my course just because they hoped to learn more about computers.
CONCLUSION
The previously described results show that the heuristic device failed to get students to make full use of the functions of word-processing packages; indeed, the data show that many students reported using the computer as a slick typewriter and, like the subjects described in the studies reviewed previously, were not using word-processing packages in a meaningful sense. Of course, the limitations of my approach may have influenced these results. First, as stated previously, my data is self-reported and may not reflect what the students actually were doing. Second, I have not reported information on students’ previous experience with computers, socio-economic background, or other factors that may have influenced their use of the technology or their checklist responses. There was no evidence that students were resisting the software; most expressed enthusiasm for computer writing. They were not writing under conditions like the professional writers studied by Thea van der Geest (1996), who made little use of the features of word-processing packages because, until recently, it was “precisely those features of word processors that make them more than just typewriters [that] prohibit[edl easy import and export to other writing environments” (p. 22). Many student writers showed their reliance on the computer through what might be called icon dependency—even though they did not know what most of the icons on the screen meant, they were uncomfortable with the full screen view option that removed the icons and ruler lines from sight. The main reason for believing that the self-reported data reflect accurately how students were using the word-processing package is that these results are consistent with reports of computer use in the workplace, where it has been found that computers are not being used efficiently. Bronwyn Fryer (1996), summarizing “hundreds of user studies,” stated that “most users take advantage of a mere 10% to 15% of the capabilities of the technology sitting in front of them” (p. 16; see also Belts, 1995; Gibbs, 1997). These criticisms of computer efficiency have been supported by both experts in technology (e.g., Landauer, 1995; Wiener, 1993/1994) and social critics (e.g., Postman, 1992; Stoll, 1995, pp. 69 ff.; Talbott, 1995; Tenner, 1996, pp. 184-209). The same claim has been made specifically about word-processing packages; some researchers have found that “people tend to use only about 5% of the capabilities available in word-processing software” (Gatlin, Rogers, & Kordsmeier, 1995, p. 3). Landauer (1995) provided more data showing that the use of word-processing packages is inefficient (pp. 53-56, 147-149). Besides failure to use functions, student use of word-process- 362 SUSSER
ing packages may be unproductive because of time wasted on formatting and what Mike Sharples (1994) called displacement activities (p. 222) or lost to computer glitches (Kellogg, p. 159). Numerous studies have pointed out that using computers motivates student writers powerfully (see, e.g., Hawisher, 1989, p. 52; Murray, 1995, p. 112; Snyder, 1993b, p. 61). On the other hand, research has shown that using computers does not necessarily improve the quality of writing (reviewed in Pennington, 1996, pp. 32 ff.). The main reason for this is that writing quality cannot be improved by new tools but only by proper instruction; even granting this, isn’t it obvious that, as Wolfe et al. (1996) pointed out, “students who have little or no word-processing experience or have poor keyboarding skills would have difficulties producing high quality writing in that medium” (p. 271; see also Kellogg, 1994, pp. 147-148)? When students use word- processing packages in a meaningful way, it may turn out that writing quality will improve. This claim must be tested by redoing the computers and writing studies of the past with participants actually word processing. The literature review showed that students are not using a word processing fully; my classroom experiment showed that passive heuristic devices such as a checklist are not sufficient to develop skills for word processing. Given this, C&W teachers must first require that students get thorough training in the use of word-processing package.16 We cannot rely simply on the diffusion of computers to accomplish this training in the use of word-processing software. Although we certainly will be seeing more students who, like the writer quoted by Sherry Turkle (1995), “think[s] in Microsoft WORD” (p. 61), the evidence cited previously shows that even experienced computer users will not necessarily be using the software fully. Additionally, we should try in our feedback to make explicit the relationships between revision and word- processing operations just as business and technical writing instructors make explicit connections between content and publication or presentation with desktop publishing and presentation software. Beyond the classroom, we should lobby for redesigned interfaces for word-processing packages that encourage writers to use the functions essential for revision in particular. For example, one word-processing package the students in my class used (Microsoft WORD for WINDOWS 95, ver. 7.0, English-Japanese bilingual edition) has a pull-down menu for the basic editing functions such as cut and paste; however, these are just two in a list of 16 items, eight of which lead to further windows filled with additional choices. Given this wealth of choices and the dazzling array of icons, tool bars, menus, rulers, and so on that crowd the screen, and the fact that most school computers are used by many students in the course of a week so cannot be configured to individual taste, it is no wonder students are overwhelmed and consequently adopt a minimalist procedure for using word-processing packages. If we can attain these objectives—students well-trained in using word-processing packages, pedagogy that overtly links revision operations with word-processing functions, user-friendly software design—then one day word processing will genuinely disappear, in the sense described by Ian Colford (1996): “As we work and grow familiar with [the computer], the keyboard, like the pen, becomes an extension of our will. The word-processing command language becomes internalized; we forget to even think about it” (p.
16Marityn Schaeffer (1987) proposed a seven-year program from kindergarten through grade six. 363 Disappearance of Word Processing
53). Before this can happen, student writers have to become aware of and learn the functions of word-processing packages and as writing teachers, we have to take a visible hand in bringing this about if we expect computers to fulfill their potential as powerful tools for writing and writing instruction.
Acknowledgment: Parts of the research on which this article is based were presented at the following conferences: TESOL ‘96 (30th Annual Convention; Chicago, IL, March 26-30, 1996); the Twelfth Computers and Writing Conference (Utah State University, Logan, UT, May 30-June 2, 1996); The Sixth Language Seminar (Doshisha University, Kyoto,. Japan, July 13, 1996); and the Thirteenth Computers and Writing Conference (Kapi’olani Community College, Honolulu, HI, June 5-9, 1997). I am grateful for the comments made by the persons who attended these presentations and by the three anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft. Thanks also to Corey Wick for his help during the research phase.
Bernard Susser teaches EFL writing using computers in Kyoto, Japan. He has published articles on computers and writing from the EFL perspective. His main research interests are Computer- Assisted Language Learning and cross-cultural communication. His e-mail address is
REFERENCES
Al-Hazmi, Sultan, & Scholfield, Phil. (1997). Word-processing compositions: An Arab ESL perspective. In Alasdair Archibald & Gaynor C. Jeffery (Eds.), Second language acquisition and writing: A multi- disciplinary approach (pp. 110-124). Southampton, England: University of Southampton. Balestri, Diane Pelkus. (1988). Softcopy and hard: Word-processing and writing process. Academic Computing, 2, 14-17,41-45. Benesch, Sarah. (1987, March). Word processing in English as a second language: A case study of three non- native college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 281 383) Betts, Mitch. (1995, January 23). Drop that mouse! The boss is coming! Computerworld. Available
Bridwell-Bowles, Lillian. (1989). Designing research on computer-assisted writing. Computers and Composition, 7(1), 79-91. Bridwell-Bowles, Lillian; Johnson, Parker; & Brehe, Steven. (1987). Composing and computers: Case studies of experienced writers. In Ann Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production processes (pp. 81-107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Brown, Jane Lightcap. (1986). Teaching word processing: A cooperative effort. The Writing Center Journal, 6(2), 11-17. Bruce, Bertram C., & Hogan, Maureen P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In David Reinking, Michael C. McKenna, Linda D. Labbo, & Ronald D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269- 281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burley, Hansel. (1994, January). Postsecondary novice and better than novice writers: Effects of word processing and a very special computer assisted writing lab. Paper presented at a conference of the Southwestern Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 857) Carroll, John M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel: Deigning minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Catano, James V. (1985). Computer-based writing: Navigating the fluid text. College Composition and Communication, 36(3), 309-316. Chandler, Daniel. (1987). Are we ready for word processors? English in Australia, 79, 11-17. Chandler, Daniel. (1995). The act of writing: A media theory approach. Aberystwyth, Dyfed, Wales, UK: University of Wales. Chapelle, Carol. (1990). The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: Toward a context for descriptive research. TESOL Quarter/v. 24(2), 199-225. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn; Paris, Cynthia L.; & Kahn, Jessica L. (1991). Learning to write differently: Beginning writers and word processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cohen, Moshe, & Riel, Margaret. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143-159. Colford, Ian A. (1996). Writing in the electronic environment: Electronic text and the future of creativity and knowledge (Occasional paper 59). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Dalhousie University School of Library and Information Studies. Collier, Richard, & Werier, Clifford. (1994). When computer writers compose by hand. Computers and Composition. 12(1), 47-59. Conway, Glenda. (1994). “What are we doing today?” High school basic writers collaborating in a computer lab. Computers and Composition, 12(1), 79-95. Crafton, Robert E. (1996). Promises, promises: Computer-assisted revision and basic writers. Computers and Composition, 13(3), 317-326. Crew, Louie. (1989). Software that puts the computer into composition. The ACE Newsletter, 5(1), 4-5. Cross, Geoffrey. (1990). Left to their own devices: Three basic writers using word processing. Computers and Composition, 7(2), 47-58. Dalton, Bridget M.; Morocco, Catherine Cobb; & Neale, Amy E. (1988, April). “I’ve lost my story!” Integrating word processing with writing instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296 717) Dalton, David W., & Hannafin. Michael J. (1987). The effects of word processing on written composition. Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 338-342. Davidson, Catherine. (1996). Taking advantage of technology: Using word processing to teach writing to students of English as a second language. In Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh & Disappearance of Word Processing 365
Michel Couzijn (Eds.), Effective teaching and learning of writing: Current trends in research (pp. 89- 100). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. Davidson, Catherine, & Tomic, Alice. (1994). Removing computer phobia from the writing classroom. English Language Teaching Journal, 48(3), 205-213. Dierckins, Tony. (1994). Macintosh versus IBM in composition instruction: Does a significant difference exist? Computers and Composition, 11(2), 151-164. Dorner, Jane. (1991). Computers and writing IV: Fourth annual conference on computers and the writing process [Conference report]. Computers & Writing Newsletter, 6, 14-15. Dowling, Carolyn. (1994). Word processing and the ongoing difficulty of writing. Computers and Composition, 11(3), 227-235. DUET 1.3 [Computer software]. (1990). Tokushima Prefecture, Japan: Just System. Elbow, Peter. (1996). Speaking and writing. In Theresa Enos (Ed.). Encyclopedia of rhetoric and composition: Communication from ancient times to the information age (pp. 686-690). New York: Garland. Ellul, Jacques. (1964). The technological society (John Wilkinson, Trans.). New York: Vintage. (Original work published 1954) Fella, Evelyn. (1989). Keeping your cool in a writing lab. C.A.L.L. Digest, 5(6), 3-4. Freedman, Aviva, & Clarke, Linda. (1988). The effect of computer technology on composing processes and written products of grade 8 and grade 12 students. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 535) Friedlander, Alexander, & Markel, Mike. (1990). Some effects of the Macintosh on technical writing assignments. Computers and Composition, 8(1), 69-79. Fryer, Bronwyn. (1996, June). The well-wired manager. Working Woman, 21(6), 16-18. Gass, William. (1988, February 4). The polemical philosopher. New York Review of Books, 35(l), 35-41. Gatlin, Rebecca; Rogers, Betty; & Kordsmeier, William. (1995). Word processing competencies. Conway, AR: University of Central Arkansas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 182) Gerlach, Gail J. (1987, April). The effect of typing skill on using a word processor for composition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 286 465) Gerrard, Lisa. (1995). The evolution of the computers and writing conference. Computers and Composition, 12(3), 279-292. Gibbs, W. Wayt. (1997, July). Taking computers to task. Scientific American. Available:
and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology (pp. 319-335). New York: The Modem Language Association. Hardison, O. B., Jr. (1989). Disappearing through the skylight: Culture and technology in the twentieth century. New York: Viking Penguin. Hawisher, Gail E. (1989). Research and recommendations for computers and composition. In Gail E. Hawisher & Cynthia L. Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers and composition instruction (pp. 44-69). New York: Teachers College Press. Hawisher. Gail E.; LeBlanc, Paul; Moran, Charles; & Selfe, Cynthia L. (1996). Computers and the teaching of writing in American higher education, 1979-1994: A history. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hawisher, Gail E., & Selfe, Cynthia L. (1991). The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication, 42(1), 55-65. Hayes, John R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Heilker, Paul. (1992). Revision worship and the computer as audience. Computers and Coniposition, 9(3), 59- 69. Heim, Michael. (1987). Electric language: A philosophical study of word processing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Heim, Michael. (1993). The metaphysics of virtual reality. New York: Oxford University Press. Herrmann, Andrea W. (1985a, November). Teaching Strategies for introducing word processing into the writing class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Philadelphia, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 276 037) Herrmann, Andrea W. (1985b, May). Writing on the computer: Marginal, selective, and dynamic learners. Paper presented at the UCLA Conference on Computers and Writing: New Directions in Teaching and Research, Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259 368) Herrmann. Andrea W. (1991). Evaluating computer-supported writing. In Gail E. Hawisher & Cynthia L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers and composition studies: Questions for the 1990s (pp. 150-170). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Houghton, MI: Computers and Composition. Hilligoss, Susan, & Selfe, Cynthia L. (1994). Studying literacy with computers. In Cynthia L. Selfe & Susan Hilligoss (Eds.), Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology (pp. 336-340). New York: The Modem Language Association. Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. (1997). Nostalgic angels: rearticulating hypertext writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Jones, William Goodrich. (1994). Humanist scholars’ use of computers in libraries and writing. In Cynthia L. Selfe & Susan Hilligoss (Eds.), Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology (pp. 157-170). New York: The Modem Language Association. Joram, Elana; Woodruff, Earl; Bryson, Mary; & Lindsay, Peter H. (1992). The effects of revising with a word processor on written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(2), 167-193. Joram, Elana; Woodruff, Earl; Lindsay, Peter; & Bryson, Mary. (1990). Students’ editing skills and attitudes toward word processing. Computers and Composition, 7(3), 55-72. Jostad, Karen. (1988). MultiScribe: A word processor/publisher hybrid. The Writing Notebook, 6(2), 32-33. Kalmbach. James. (1996). From liquid paper to typewriters: Some historical perspectives on technology in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 13(1), 57-68. 367 Disappearance of Word Processing
Kalmbach, James R. (1997). The computer and the page: Publishing, technology, and the classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kehagia. Olga, & Cox, Margaret. (1997). Revision changes when using word processors in an English as a foreign language context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(3), 239-253. Kellogg, Ronald T. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Kellogg, Ronald I., & Mueller, Suzanne. (1989, November). Cognitive tools and thinking performance: The case of word processors and writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Atlanta GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 311 455) Kirkpatrick. Carolyn. (1987). Implementing computer-mediated writing: Some early lessons. Machine- Mediated Learning, 2(1/2), 35-45. Kurth, Ruth J. (1987). Using word processing to enhance revision strategies during student writing activities. Educational Technology, 27(1), 13-19. Landauer, Thomas K. (1995). The trouble with computers: Usefulness, usabiliy, and productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lanham, Richard A. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Levy, Michael. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York: Oxford University Press. Li, Nim-Yu Kitty. (1990, July). Writing with pen or computer? A study on ESL secondary school learners. Paper presented at the annual World Conference on Computers in Education, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 720) Li, Nim-Yu Kitty. (1994, March). Word processing writing for ESL basic writer: Pain or gain? Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Baltimore, MD. Liechty, Anna L. (1989). The efficacy of computer assisted instruction in teaching composition. South Bend, IN: Exit Project, Indiana University at South Bend. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 314 023) Lucky, Robert W. (1989). Silicon dreams: Information, man, and machine. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Magoto. Jeff. (1995). From the nets: When are computers inappropriate? CAELL Journal, 6(2), 30-33. Mårdsjö, Karin. (1996). Interfacing technology. Computers and Composition, 13(3), 303-315. Markel, Mike. (1994). Behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes: A study of word processing and writing quality among experienced word-processing students. Computers and Composition, 11(1), 49-58. McAllister, Carole, & Louth, Richard. (1988). The effect of word processing on the quality of basic writers’ revisions. Research in the Teaching of English. 22(4), 417-427. Mehan, Hugh. (1989). Microcomputers in classrooms: Educational technology or social practice? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 20, 4-22. Microsoft WORD for WINDOWS 95 7.0 [Computer software]. (1995). Tokyo, Japan: Microsoft Japan. Miller, Larry, & Olson. John. (1994). Putting the computer in its place: A study of teaching with technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(2), 121-141. Miller-Souviney, Barbara, & Souviney, Randall. (1987). A classroom word processing guide (Report No. 18). La Jolla, CA: Center for Human Information Processing, University of California, San Diego. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 628) Montague, Marjorie. (1990). Computers, cognition, and writing instruction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Mullins. Phil. (1988). The fluid word: Word processing and its mental habits. Thought, 63, 413-428. 368 SUSSER
Murray, Denise E. (1995). Knowledge machines: Language and information in a technological society. New York: Longman. Nichols, Randall 0. (1986). Word processing and basic writers. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(2), 81-97. NISUSWRITER [Computer software]. (1995). Solana Beach, CA: Paragon Concepts; Japanese version by Mercury Software, Kyoto, Japan. North, Stephen M. (1987). The making of knowledge in composition: Portrait of an emerging field. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Ong, Walter J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen. Opack, Michele M., & Perushek, Barbara A. (1986). Effective instruction in word processing: Maximizing minimal competence. Educational Technology, 26(12), 33-36. Oppenheimer, Todd. (1997, July). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 280(1), 45-62. Ortega, Lourdes. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93. Available:
Reeves, Byron, & Nass, Clifford. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University Publications & New York: Cambridge University Press. Reynolds, Thomas J., & Lewis, Charles R. (1997). The changing topography of computer access for composition students. Computers and Composition. 14(2), 269-278. Rid, Margaret. (1989). The impact of computers in classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(2), 180-190. Riel, Margaret. (1990). Computer-mediated communication: A tool for reconnecting kids with society. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(4), 255-263. Riel, Margaret. (1994). Educational change in a technology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 452-474. Sanders, Barry. (1994). A is for ox: The collapse of literacy and the rise of violence in an electronic age. New York: Vintage. Schaeffer, E. Marilyn. (1987). Teaching writing with the microcomputer. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Scott, Suzanne, & Stoller, Fredricka L. (1996). Creating a suitable word-processing manual for ESL students. College ESL, 6(2), 39-49. Selfe, Cynthia L., & Selfe, Richard J., Jr. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45(4), 480-504. Sharples, Mike. (1994). Computer support for the rhythms of writing. Computers and Composition, 11(3), 217-226. Sheingold, Karen. (1987). The microcomputer as a symbolic medium. In Roy D. Pea & Karen Sheingold (Eds.), Mirrors of minds: Patterns of experience in educational computing (pp. 198-208). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Shurbutt, S. Bailey. (1987). Integration of classroom computer use and the peer evaluation process: Increasing the level of composition proficiency through student revision. The Writing Center Journal, 8(l), 35-42. Sloane, Sarah. (1987. March). A case study of a reluctant word processor: A look at one student in a word- processing classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 285 200) Snyder, Ilana. (l993a). The impact of computers on students’ writing: A comparative study of the effects of pens and word processors on writing context, process and product. Australian Journal of Education. 17(l), 5-25. Snyder, Ilana. (l993b). Writing with word processors: A research overview. Educational Research, 35(1), 49- 68. Snyder, Ilana. (1994). Writing with word processors: The computer’s influence on the classroom context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(2), 143-162. Stoll, Clifford. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. New York: Anchor. Strickland, James. (l987a, April). Computer-tutors and a freshman writer: A protocol study. Paper presented at the annual symposium of the New York College Learning Skills Association, Rochester, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 198) Strickland, James. (l987b, March). Evaluating computer-tutors: A protocol study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 280 029) Strickland, James. (1989). How the student writer adapts to computers: A first-year student protocol. Computers and Composition, 6(2), 7-22. 370 SUSSER
Sudol, Ronald A. (1991). The accumulative rhetoric of word processing. College English, 53(8), 920-932. Sullivan, Patricia. (1989). Human-computer interaction perspectives on word-processing issues. Computers and Composition, 6(3), 11-33. Susser, Bernard. (1994a). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 31-47. Susser, Bernard. (1994b). Word processing and the writing process: A review of research. The Computer- Assisted Composition Journal, 8(2), 28-37. Talbott, Stephen L. (1995). The future does not compute: Transcending the machines in our midst. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. Teles, Lucio. (1988). The adoption of word processing by graduate students in education. Education & Computing, 4(4), 287-299. Tenner, Edward. (1996). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Thiesmeyer. John. (1989). Should we do what we can? In Gail E. Hawisher & Cynthia L. Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers and composition instruction (pp. 75-93). New York: Teachers College Press. Thomas, David M. (1989). The ‘I can write’ project. Computers in the Schools, 6(3/4), 133-140. Thomas, Gordon. (1993). Students, teachers, computers, and architects: Designing an open computer writing laboratory. In Linda Myers (Ed.), Approaches to computer writing classrooms: Learning from practical experience (pp. 181-198). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Thomas, Irene D. (1985, November). Uses of the computer in teaching the composing process: 1985 annual report of the NCTE Committee on Instructional Technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Philadelphia, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 265 571) Tone. Bruce, & Winchester, Dorothy. (1988). Too early to judge the impact: Computer-assisted writing instruction (ERIC Digest, Number 2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 130) Tomow, Joan. (1997). Link/Age: Composing in the online classroom. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Tuman, Myron C. (1992). Word perfect: Literacy in the computer age. Pittsburgh. PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tuman, Myron. (1993). Campus word processing: Seven design principles for a new academic writing environment. Computers and Composition, 10(3), 49-62. Turkle, Sherry. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster. van der Geest, Thea. (1996). Professional writing studied: Authors’ accounts of planning in document production processes. In Mike Sharples & Thea van der Geest (Eds.), The new writing environment: Writers at work in a world of technology (pp. 7-24). London: Springer-Verlag London. Van Haalen, Teresa. (1990). Efficacy of word processing as a writing tool for bilingual elementary school students: A pilot study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 318 233) Van Haalen. Teresa, & Bright, George W. (1993). Writing and revising by bilingual students in traditional and word processing environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(3), 313-328. Vidal, Gore. (1984, March 29). In love with the adverb. New York Review of Books, 31(5), 20-21. Wallace, Ray. (1988). Computer-assisted composition: Guidelines for ESL instruction. The Computer-Assisted Composition Journal, 2(2), 89-95. Disappearance of Word Processing 371
Wiener, Lauren Ruth. (1993/1994). Digital woes: Why we should not depend on software. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Williamson, Michael M., & Pence, Penny. (1989). Word processing and student writers. In Bruce K. Britton & Shawn M. Glynn (Eds.), Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design (pp. 93-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Winner, Langdon. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Winograd, Terry, & Flores, Fernando. (1986/1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wolfe, Edward W.; Bolton, Sandra; Feltovich, Brian; & Bangert, Art W. (1996). A study of word-processing experience and its effects on student essay writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 269-283. Wright, Anne. (1987). Terminal writing in the writing lab? The Writing Center Journal, 8(1), 21-28. Wright, Anne. (1988). Teaching writing while jumping through new technological hoops. English Journal, 77(7), 33-38. Yates, Simeon J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29- 46). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Zeni, Jane. (1990). WritingLands: Composing with old and new writing tools. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
APPENDIX
Checklist for WORD Class
MS WORD CHECKLIST NAME: ______DATE: ______Often Sometimes Never 1. Did you use the HELP function today? ______2. Did you use the CUT and PASTE funeions today? ______3. Did you use the UNDO function today? ______4. Did you use the SPELLING CHECK today? ______5. Did you use CORRECT GRAMMAR today? ______6. Did you have computer trouble today? ______7. Did you use any new functions today? ______Which?______8. Which do you use most, the mouse or keyboard commands? Mouse Keyboard 9. Circle the special keys you used today: BackSpace Delete Home End PageUp PageDown Arrowkeys Ctrl+ [any key] Alt+ [any key] Esc Other:______Comments: