Bib #2

CCC 1985-87 

A Selected Bibliography on Computers in Composition: An Update

Helen J. Schwartz and Lillian S. Bridwell-Bowles

College Composition and Communication

Vol. 38, No. 4 (Dec., 1987) (pp. 453-457)

Updated bibliography of sources for software and word processing in computers and composition.  Software still dominates the conversation and concern for computers in the classroom.

---

Computer Conversations: E-Mail and Writing Instruction

Joyce Kinkead

College Composition and Communication

Vol. 38, No. 3 (Oct., 1987) (pp. 337-341)

This is the first appearance of a discussion about email. Much of the interchange discusses the use of email for peer critique/review and the author notes that students (for the most part) prefer email exchanges for peer review as they believe it affords for a more fair and honest assessment since there is no pressure of being in the physical company of the reviewee.  The author also notes that the "electronic tutor" implemented via email in their writing center fosters written communication.

--

Faculty Training in Computers and Composition: Warnings and Recommendations

Laurence Tobin

College Composition and Communication

Vol. 38, No. 2 (May, 1987) (pp. 195-198)

Despite so much talk of computers in composition, many instructors still have skepticism about their use (Tobin 195).  Tobin offers an anecdotal account of his first experience with faculty training and from that he provides suggestions for future faculty workshops: 1) make workshops optional, 2) focus only on what's needed from the word processor/program, 3) promote word processors/programs as having potential for possibilities, not being the ultimate truth and future of the discipline, and 4) have instructors learn by working with a piece of their own work. Note: The 4th suggestion is reminiscent of suggestions made elsewhere about ideal scenarios for teaching students to work with word processors.

----

Computer-Based Writing: Navigating the Fluid Text

James V. Catano

College Composition and Communication

Vol. 36, No. 3 (Oct., 1985) (pp. 309-316)

Catano conducts a study on the effect of word processors on writing/revision.  According to Catano, a "fluid text" refers to composing with or without computers/word processors.  The article/study concludes by suggesting that word processors are both good and bad for the revision process and fluidity of a text and ultimately it hinges on how the word processor is used in the process.

---

Student Writers and Word Processing: A Preliminary Evaluation

Jeanette Harris

College Composition and Communication

Vol. 36, No. 3 (Oct., 1985) (pp. 323-330)

Harris identifies a gap in current work on computers and revision, noting that revision has not been well-defined.  She distinguishes between editing, proofing, and revision in order to develop her definition of revision.  This pilot study examines the effect of word processing on revision, specifically asking if word processors increase students' revision processes.  The study concludes that word processors do not increase the revision process but are great anyway.

----

Applied Word Processing: Notes on Authority, Responsibility, and Revision in a Workshop Model

Ronald A. Sudol

College Composition and Communication

Vol. 36, No. 3 (Oct., 1985) (pp. 331-335)

Yet another study of revision and word processing this time with an emphasis on workshop models.  Author primarily publishes in speech communication and rhetoric.

---

Computers and Basic Writers

Dawn Rodrigues

College Composition and Communication

Vol. 36, No. 3 (Oct., 1985) (pp. 336-339)

Rodrigues observes the way basic writers are affected by word processors and finds that basic writers enjoy and work well with word processing technology. The author notes specifically that BW students reported an increase in concentration and sense of community through the use of word processing.  Rodrigues suggests that students should not learn word processing outside of the English classroom but instead learn it together/in conjunction with practicing composition.

Conversations 85:

Reply by Bruce Petersen, Cynthia Selfe, and Billie Wahlstrom

Bruce Petersen, Cynthia Selfe and Billie Wahlstrom

College Composition and Communication

Vol. 36, No. 3 (Oct., 1985) (pp. 347-348)

Challenges to CAI design are beginning to emerge.  Critiques include: inflexibility with audience (sense of audience) and that programming could get "messy" with "basement programmers."  These critiques are acknowledged yet defended by a reinforcement that it is good for the humanities to build a relationship with those in computer science to ensure the best programs are developed for composition.

87 Reviews: 

Writing at Century’s End: Essays on Computer-Assisted Composition – edited by Lisa Gerrard

Writing On-Line: Using Computers in the Teaching of Writing – Collins and Sommers (85)

Rodrigues & Rodrigues (86) Teaching Writing with a Word Processor, Grades 7-13

85 Reviews:

Walter Ong: “Technologizing of the Word”

Halpern & Liggett: “Computers and Composing: How the New Technologies are Changing Writing”

Underwood: “Linguistics, Computers, and the Language Teacher: A Communicative Approach” 

College English 85-87

Nothing

Computers and Composition 85-87

Planning and Implementing the Right Word Processing System
Thomas Brownell
Computers and Composition Vol 2. No. 2 1985

Brownell offers a resounding: yes! To the use of word processors in the classroom and enthusiastically walks the reader through essential features of the ideal processor and some “must-have” software.  Interestingly enough, at the end of the article, Brownell cautions the reader about getting too involved with the composing process on a word processor and warns that “Machines can be abused and abusive. In any mechanical environment, human beings must be the masters” (Brownell).  He notes that combining “old” processes (writing by hand) with the new (copying to the word processor” will yield results that keep the individual from harming their eyes and spending, in general, too much time in front of a screen.

Marking Papers and Record Keeping for Apple Users
Robert Lucking
Computers and Composition Vol. 2 #2  1985

Lucking makes an early note that the biggest reason for instructors seeking to use software for grading papers is to expedite the process of providing lengthy commentary.  Throughout the article, Lucking offers the benefits of ApplewriterII – a new program that makes easier the process of inserting instructor text files into a student’s paper at the appropriate points. Ultimately, Lucking suggests that instructors who are interested in the future of computers and composition should keep informed about the new software available to them.

The Continuing Challenge: Computers and Writing
JoAnn Zimmer

Computers and Composition Vol. 2 No. 3  1985

Zimmer outlines an account of three English instructors and an Ontario University who have taken up the challenge of not only using computers but also creating CAI for their composition classes.  This account reaffirms the dominant thought in the discipline at the time – that CAI meant instructors should learn how to create programs themselves as the programs would be the sole future of composition.  Zimmer concludes that while the process of developing and implementing software for their program has been daunting, it is ultimately rewarding and worth the effort.

Microcomputers and Writing
Elizabeth A. Sommers
James L. Collins

Computers and Composition Vol. 2 No. 4  1985

Sommers and Collins begin their article by expressing their belief (one that has been echoed elsewhere) that microcomputers are effective so long as instructors do not forget that they are to teach writing and not word processing.  Sommers and Collins argue that microcomputers are misused when they allow instructors to insert “stock” comments on papers and when certain software programs threaten to skew the writing process within a decentralized classroom. Finally, it is suggested that “Microcomputers are no panacea…not a single bit of research tells us yet that writing quality improves when word processing is used for instruction purposes. These points are worth some serious thought and further research” (Sommers, Collins).

Fighting in the Computer Revolution: A Field Report from the Walking Wounded
Cynthia L. Selfe
Billie J. Wahlstrom

Computers and Composition Vol.2 No. 4  1985

Self and Wahlstrom offer a narrative about their experiences with learning to master computers and the ongoing struggle to combine the values of “traditional humanists” and computer scientists.  Seemingly a trend in the field at the time, English instructors see the need to bridge a perceived gap between the language/values/culture/practices of those who specialize in computer science and program-writing and those who consider themselves to have traditional values in the instructions of English.

The Effects of Word Processing on the Quality of Writing: Fact or Illusion?
Carole H. McAllister

Computers and Composition Vol. 2 No. 4  August 1985

An interesting study about the perception of writing (in terms of grading) thought to be composed with a word processor versus without. The study sought to determine if knowledge that work was composed on a word processor would alter the grader’s perception of reality. Ultimately the study concluded that work composed via word processors did, in fact, receive higher grades. Although, McAllister notes that “Unfortunately, attempts to explain this effect in terms of inferences the subjects made either about the writing of the paper (e.g., it must have been rewritten more than usual) or about the student composer (e.g., he or she had the initiative to learn to use a word processor) proved unsuccessful.”

What Does User-Friendly Mean Anyway?
Billie J. Wahlstrom

Computers and Composition Vol. 3 No. 1 Nov. 1985

Arguing that the concept of “user-friendly” should be attributed to form and not content, Wahlstrom makes note of the fact that up until this point, the term “user-friendly” has been attributed to both aspects of software: its form and its content. Wahlstrom concludes by indicating that until we are clear about the distinction between form and content, we will not be able to progress further in our understanding of CAI.  Wahlstrom also draws a parallel between form/content of software to that of the “bookness”/material nature of a book versus its content/text generated by the author.

Word Processing in First-Year Comp
Wayne Moore

Computers and Composition Vol. 3 No. 1 Nov. 1985

Responding to William Marling’s claim that the best place to introduce the use of microcomputers is in advanced English courses. Moore suggests that first-year composition is a better place to introduce computers because FYC students stand to gain the most from their use of microcomputers.

Integrating Computers into the Writing Classroom: Some Guidelines
John S. Dinan, Rebecca Gagnon, and Jennifer Taylor
Computers and Composition Vol. 3 No. 1 March 1986

This article is a continuation of the conversation regarding the integration of computers into the writing classroom.  Obviously concerns still remain for the student of the writing class who is also asked to master the word processor and its nuances/software.  Suggestions are to 1) ease the student into the use of the word processor and 2) never losing the focus of the class – that of the student and their writing/writing process.  These solutions are reminiscent of other concerns and conclusions in the field at this time.

Xenophobic Word Processing
Lee Roger Taylor, Jr.
Computers and Composition Vol. 3 No. 3 August 1986

Taylor offers an interesting take on the zealous devotion to word programs that developed during the mid-1980s. According to the author’s anecdotal evidence, instructors are seemingly unwilling to venture outside of the word processing program they have adopted/learned with – be it wordperfect or wordstar to name a few.  Taylor concludes by stating “What I do want to emphasize is that we should as ‘composing’ teachers learn different composing methods--different methods of the composing process.” 

The One-Computer Classroom
Richard B. Larsen

Computers and Composition Vol. 4 No. 1 Nov. 1986

Here, Larsen responds to the issue of a dramatic lack of funding for most English departments to construct computer classrooms in order to teach using word processors/CAI software.  Larsen’s solution is to outfit a classroom with a high-tech projector, further justifying his case by stating “Computer projection can be used for a larger variety of computer-specific purposes than a small quantity of microcomputers can, even if the micros are linked with a local-area network. For one thing, LANs remain a developing technology, still fraught with glitches in any configuration beyond mere monitor-image (as opposed to true-data) sharing; for another, LANs will not serve as many students at the same time as a projector will; for yet another, they are far from being cost effective, running in some cases up to $6500-8000 for just the networking equipment and software.”

Creating a Computer-Supported Writing Lab: Sharing Stories and Creating Vision
Cynthia L. Selfe

Computers and Composition Vol. 4. No. 2 April 1987

Selfe details her experience with creating the computer-supported writing lab at Michigan Tech University. Her article concludes with observations that it may always be difficult to run a computer lab as computers will be seen as dehumanizing and students will resent having to pay an additional lab fee in order to use them.  She notes that “Many of these difficulties will never be resolved. Computer facilities often function as black holes: consuming as much money, energy, and time as a faculty are willing to commit.”

Perceptions of Word Processing in Composition Classes: First-year and Upper-level Students Compared
Linda L. Maik, Thomas A. Maik

Computers and Composition Vol. 4 No. 3 August 1987

This article reflects a progression in the ongoing conversation about whether it’s best to introduce computers to first-year students or advanced students of composition. This particular survey found that both students in first-year as well as those in advanced composition found value in the word processing tools and found them useful even despite the limited knowledge of those in first-year composition courses.

Written Communication 84-87

Editing Strategies and Error Correction in Basic Writing
Deborah McCutchen, Glynda Hull, William L. Smith
Written Communication 4 (2) April 1987

Two studies investigated the editing strategies used by college basic writing (BW) students as they went about correcting sentence-level errors in controlled editing tasks. One study involved simple word processing, and a second involved an interactive editor that supplemented the word-processing program, giving students feedback on their correction attempts and helping them focus on the errors. In both studies BW students showed two clearly different editing strategies, a consulting strategy in which grammatical rules were consulted and an intuiting strategy in which the sound of the text was assessed for “goodness” in a rather naturalistic way. Students consistently used their intuiting strategies more effectively; however, errors requiring consulting strategies showed a larger improvement after intervention by the interactive editor. Cognitive implications of the editing strategies are discussed in terms of the requisite knowledge involved in successful application of each strategy.