Purpose

According to a study conducted by the College Board, two-thirds of professional employers in America’s larger companies require strong writing skills of its employees. Moreover, in its 2004 Report of the National Commission of Writing, 80% of the business leaders surveyed in sectors with the greatest potential for growth stated that they assess writing skills during the process of hiring (College Board, 2004).

In recent years, states like North Carolina have had in place high stakes testing to assess this skill as early as fourth grade. Yet, according to a 2007 report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 33% of the nation’s eighth graders and only 24% of twelfth graders wrote at a proficient level (Salahu-Din, Miller, & ED, 2007). Given this alarming statistic, paired with a renewed emphasis on writing skills in the workplace, it appears vital that today’s teachers refocus their efforts on teaching writing in the classroom.

When one considers that, according a 2003 report by the National Center for Educational Statistics, 75.9% of American students use computers at home for school assignments (a figure that is almost certainly higher today) it seems logical for teachers to explore the computer as a tool for enhancing writing instruction. As such, a large body of research has been devoted to one question: Do computers help students become better writers? Specifically, the research tends to focus on surface errors, text and sentence length, and content revision (Figueredo & Varnhagen, 2006; Gupta, 1998; Nichols, 1996; Russell & Plati, 2000; Ulusoy, 2006).

Previous Studies

While previous research has focused primarily on the text as an indicator of computer facility, little has been documented on student beliefs about technology’s facilitation of academic self-efficacy. Consequently, there is a need to address the degree to which students feel the use of specific word processors will help or hinder their writing, especially during the revision phase.

In order to explore this question, I used a  Writing Process Model (WPM) as a theoretical framework. The WPM framework suggests that three main strategies are used by writers when they produce texts – planning, creating sentences, and revising. These processes are non-linear. In other words, writers do not follow from point to point as the text is generated. Rather, they move forward, revisit, erase, and begin again, all the while following a growing set of hierarchical goals (Flower and Hayes, 1981). Thus, the think aloud strategy is sometimes used by researchers to capture the writer’s actions as they happen (Flower and Hayes, 1986). Some caution, however, has been leveled toward the use of think alouds, as the very act of prompting the subject introduces potential bias (Li, 2006).

Participants

Nine male and ten female tenth grade students (ages 14-16) enrolled in either of two remedial writing classes participated in this study. Of the 19 participants, 12 were African American, four were white, and three were Latino. Four of the 19 students were identified as exceptional children and one identified as having attention deficit disorder (ADD). Table 1 presents specific learning disability data for each of the five students. The study took place in a medium-sized high school (total enrollment approximately 1350) located in the southeastern region of the United States.

Materials and Methods

Computer-use Survey

A computer-use survey was administered on the first day of the semester to identify student beliefs and habits about personal computer and alphasmart usage.

Work Samples

Student work samples were collected and analyzed for the purposes of the study. One handwritten definition essay was collected at the beginning of the semester to establish a baseline for writing. A second personal essay composed on an alphasmart 3000 was collected three weeks after the beginning of the semester. The alphasmart 3000 is a battery-powered portable word processor that displays three lines of text on a small black and white screen. The alphasmart is used by schools wishing to provide an economic alternative to PC or Apple products (Berry, 2007). A second definition essay composed on the Apple iBook using Microsoft Word was collected midway through the semester.

Focus Groups

Finally, two focus groups (one for each class) were conducted. Students were selected based on the demographics of the class and individual writing ability.

Related Links

Writing Process Model
The Cognitive Process Model of the Composing Process (Flower and Hayes, 1981)

Renaissance Learning
Supplier of AlphaSmartTM Neo®

Walker M. Williams High School
Alamance-Burlington School System
Burlington, North Carolina

Reflective Journals

Students were also assigned two reflective journal entries designed to elicit student beliefs about using the iBook and/or alphasmart and their relative facilitation of academic efficacy. One journal entry was assigned after completion of a definition essay composed on an alphasmart. The other was assigned after the completion of a definition essay composed on an iBook.

Field Notes

Teacher/researcher field notes and reflections were also analyzed to provide insight into the perceptions of the teacher as researcher as it pertains to various modes of writing and student thinking.

Themes

In analyzing the data, several themes arose. Those themes centered on conventions, thinking about the process (metacognition), word-processor design, and genre. These themes were generated as the students reflected on the writing process when using the alphasmart, the iBook, or pencil/pen and paper. For the purposes of the gallery, I have focused on one of the themes.

Thinking about the process (metacognition):

In two separate focus groups, students were asked specific questions that revealed their thinking about the writing process. An original research question for me was: how do students think about the writing process? In other words, what decisions do students make when they are thinking about thinking (via writing). Does the alphasmart facilitate these decisions? Does it help free working memory so that they may focus on higher level thinking? As I watched and asked the students about their thought processes I noticed that they were more focused on whether they liked using the alphasmart, rather than if it actually helped them think about writing. It was not until I began to analyze the focus group transcripts that I realized that there may have actually been some level of metacognition buried within their discussion of which mode they preferred.

Where they started

So, for example, in the first block focus group, when the interviewer asked, “During what part of the writing process is it best to use an alphasmart or a laptop? Like is it better to do it, um, brainstorming, planning, revising or making the final draft?” some students revealed an understanding of the metacognitive nature of writing. Despite the fact that the interviewer appeared to lead their answers into metacognition, the students did have distinct opinions. Four of the five students indicated that an alphasmart would be best used during the final draft. One student  indicated, “Cause you have already revised it on the laptop or handwriting it and so then when its all done its better just to type on the alphasmart the whole thing with no mistakes than having to do it with mistakes and then having to revise it over.” Although the logic of error correction here is flawed, the student still had some understanding that required thinking about the process.

Teacher and researcher

As I reflected on each phase of the research process one conflict came to mind repeatedly. It involved the dichotomous nature of the teacher as researcher vs the teacher as instructor. As I began my attempts to collect data, it became increasingly obvious that as I took time to gather notes during class I was failing to help students learn. When I turned to helping students learn I was failing to gather data. This constant role reversal made for gaps in the data. Ultimately, what it led to was an attempt on my part to reflect on the day’s instruction by recording my thoughts on a digital recorder. Inevitably, I lost some valuable information due simply to lack of recall. In the future, when I conduct research, I will attempt to do so at times when I am not teaching.

In addition, in reflecting on the research analysis, certain implications for instruction become obvious. One is the potential harmful effects of the alphasmart not only on the student’s academic self-efficacy but also on his or her ability to brainstorm, compose, and revise. In other words, the elements of the WPM seem to be compromised by the design of this word processor. Conversely, the academic self-efficacy of students who are using the iBook (Microsoft Word) seemed to increase. One student even commented that using the iBook made her feel smart.

Limitations and opportunities

Finally, limitations of the research did become apparent as I began to analyze the data. One such limitation centers on the nature of the student. The students involved in this student were those whom the school identified as weak writers (and readers). If the study is conducted in the future, I would want to repeat it with students who are advanced in their writing skills. In addition, the study focused on my students in my room. As such, I was unable to completely assume the role of the researcher. In the future, I would like to research this topic with students in someone else’s class. In addition, most of the students represented minority groups. In total, between the two classes there were only three white students total. Future studies may need to focus on classes that are more heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity.