Chais 2011

תהליכים בכתיבה הנעשית בעזרת התמלילן

Writing Processes with Word Processors

Merav Asafמירב אסף Kaye Academic College of Education

Ben Gurion University

Ely Kozminskyאלי קוזמינסקי Ben Gurion University

Objectives

Portraying substantial computerized writing processes

Viewing findings with reference to pen-and-paper writing research

What research tells us about:The Writing Process

Writing – a recursive engagement in three procedures (Hayes and Flower, 1980):

Planning – retrieving content, procedures and text design from memory or external sources

Translating – physical generation of the text

Reviewing – rereading and rewriting to improve language, meaning and appropriateness

What research tells us about:Expert Writers

Initially plan content and structure and write comprehensive drafts

Pause mainly after meaningful units (write first review after)

Engage in separate macro and micro reviewing activities

(e.g. Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Schoonen et al., 2003)

What research tells us about: Computer vs. Pen-and-Paper Writing Less planning

Longer time on task

More reviewing (especially micro-reviewing)

Longer and slightly better products

(e.g. Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Goldberg, Russell & Cook, 2003; Graham & Perin, 2007)

Our Questions:

How do writers, using word processing software, engage in the writing procedures?

How are processes linked to the quality of products?

Method: Participants: 40 female psychology students

Task: Writing either a persuasion or a pro-con essay on a given topic

Data Collection: Writing sessions were recorded, observed and were logged using Inputlog

Data Analysis: Coding each action into Planning, Translating, Reviewing and their sub-processes. Assessing quality of drafts and essays.

Results: General Pattern Has Not Changed Similar to Findings in Pen-and-Paper Studies:

Writers recursively engage in the three procedures with more planning at the beginning and more revision towards the end.

Results: Engagement in Processes Has Changed Unlike Findings in Pen-and-Paper Studies:

Within the macro-process, writers continuously engage in micro-recursive processes of P-T-R

Disengagement within meaningful units for editing and planning

Novice like processes no drafts, mainly micro-editing

Quality was not related to the processes

Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis

Limitations

40 writers only Homogenous group (age, gender,

academic level) Artificial conditions Essay tasks only Inference in data analysis

Issues for Further Discussion Is the tool compensative?

and if so…. What is a good writer nowadays? Better practices:

Blind typing Turning off flagging options Outlining tools

Thank You

Results: General Pattern Has Not Changed Similar to Findings in Pen-On-Paper Studies:

Results: General Description

Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis“Planners” (n=20):

Heavy planning throughout the process Gradual increase in translating and reviewing

Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis“Translators” (n=4):

Mainly typing after second phase Significantly shorter writing process

Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis“Reviewers” (n=6):

Mainly reviewing after second phase Recursive mini-stages (word to sentence level)

Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis

“Transitioners” (n=10): Constant engagement in all stages Focus changing: planning>translating>reviewing