EFFECTS OF COMPUTER WORD PROCESSING ON THE CREATIVE WRITING
OF COLLEGE COMPOSITION STUDENTS
by
Holly M. Wells
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements
for the Degree of
Master ofArts
in the
English
Program
YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY
August 2001
EFFECTS OF COMPUTER WORD PROCESSING ON THE CREATIVE WRITING
OF COLLEGE COMPOSITION STUDENTS
Holly M. Wells
I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand this thesis will be housed at the
Circulation Desk ofthe University library and will be available for public access. I also
authorize the University or other individuals to make copies ofthis thesis as needed for
scholarly research.
Signature:
Approvals:
/CL{,('<"l }iA.. tlJlll2=.
Student i
",..J
;z(z.sl
/"<:'1c: (
Date
Date
, . Date
eP; 1);
Date
1ll
ABSTRACT
This thesis examines research in computers and creativity, pointing out that few studies exist
to tell us how computers affect the creative products ofadult writers. The first section ofthis
thesis summarizes the existing research, noting where individual studies may be relevant to
the study ofcreativity in adult writers.
The second and third sections ofthis thesis describe an in-class writing experiment
performed at Youngstown State University during spring semester, 2001. In the experiment,
68 beginning college writers in five "Writing I" classes wrote a narrative on a prompt. Half
the students in each class wrote their essays by hand, and halfused Microsoft Word 97, a
popular word processing program. Three judges rated the essays on three creativity-related
criteria: idea, word choice, and development/organization.
The ratings, analyzed using an Analysis ofYariance (ANaYA), showed a slight,
statistically insignificant tendency toward better performance when writers used word
processors. Male students showed negligible improvement when using the computer;
however, female students scored nearly 10% higher on the computer in both the idea and
development/ organization criteria. Overall, word count increased by over 18% when
subjects used the computer.
The final section ofthe thesis discusses the results ofa questionnaire, "Technology in
the Classroom," which asked 56 students eight detailed questions about their history with
computers, their experience and level ofcomfort with them, and their experience and
satisfaction with research using the Internet. The vast majority ofrespondents have at least
some computer, word processing, and Internet experience, and nearly halfclaim to have
"extensive" experience.
IV
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the contribution ofthe entire Youngstown State University
English Department, and especially the Professional Writing and Editing staff, to my
success in the master's program. Special thanks go to my hard-working advisory
committee: Drs. Bege Bowers, William Greenway, and Charles Nelson. I'd also like to
acknowledge the kind advice and assistance ofDr. Julia Gergits, Dr. Nancy McCracken,
Terry Benton, Jay Gordon, Dr. Suzanne Diamond, and Dr. Mike Finney. Thanks also to
the five composition instructors-and their students-who let me invade their classrooms
for a day: Sophia West, Terry Benton, Stephanie Blei, Shaun Asbury, and Dori-Ann
Granger. Finally, I am deeply grateful to my judges-Dr. Hugh McCracken, Dr. Rick
Shale, and R6isin Moriarty. Without your support, suggestions, and efforts, this project
would never have happened.
This thesis is dedicated to the memory ofmy mother, Jacquelyn Wells, and to my
family.
v
Table ofContents
SECTION 1: Toward an Understanding ofthe Psychology ofCreativity in Writers 1
Determining creativity 3
Measuring creativity 6
Amabile's Consensual Technique for Creativity Assessment; the role of play
in creativity and how computers encourage play 10
Does word processing amplify student performance in writing tasks? 18
Does using word processors affect creative writing? 24
How does the existing research on word processor use and creativity apply to
college-age writers? 29
SECTION 2: A Study ofthe Effects of Computer Use on Narrative Essays of College
Freshman Writers 30
Demographics 31
Structure of the Experiment 32
Prompt 34
Other Information on the Assignment 35
Judges and Rating 35
Avoiding Threats to Internal Validity of the Study 38
Additional Criteria Being Considered 39
SECTION 3: Analysis of Experiment Results 42
Summary of Overall Results 43
Results Analyzed by Gender 45
SECTION 4: Responses to the "Technology in the Classroom Questionnaire" .•.•............... 48
Introduction 49
Summary of Results 50
Discussion ofResults 55
Question 1: Level of experience in computer use..................................•.•.............. 55
Question 2: Level of typing skill 56
Question 3: Familiarity with word processing software 57
Question 4: Computers in the childhood home 58
VI
Question 5: The computer as part ofthe writing process 59
Question 6: Level of comfort with computers 60
Question 7: Familiarity with the Internet and World Wide Web 61
Question 8: Level ofsatisfaction with the Internet as a tool and with
quality of information on the Internet 63
Implications for Today's Classrooms and Tomorrow's Research 65
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: "Technology in the Classroom" Questionnaire 70
Appendix 2: "Technology in the Classroom" Responses Listed by Gender 71
Appendix 3: "Technology in the Classroom" Responses Listed by Age Group 74
Appendix 4: Statement ofInformed Consent 77
Appendix 5: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Handwriting
Condition 78
Appendix 6: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Computer
Condition 84
WORKS CITED 85
WORKS CONSULTED 88
Section 1:
Toward an Understanding of the
Psychology of Creativity in Writers
1
Without attempting to perform a meta-analysis ofthe literature on creativity studies to
date, this section will cite relevant studies that enable the reader to understand how
cognitive psychologists and other experts in the field ofcreativity approach the creative
process and assess its products.
A thorough search oflibrary resources and online publications yields much in the
field ofcreativity research, but surprisingly little ofthat research is quantitative or
experimental. Rather, as Teresa Amabile points out in The Social Psychology of
Creativity, the major emphasis ofrecent research has been case studies ofcreative
individuals (4). Although such case studies may give useful insight, they rely on much
that is subjective (which is, as we shall see, not entirely negative), and, because they so
often study famous and successful creative people, they give little indication ofhow to
account for creativity in the general public-in our elementary and secondary schools, in
colleges and universities, and in the working world.
Must we, as educators in English language arts, assume that creativity exists only
when the creator becomes rich and famous? Must we tell students that, compared to
James Joyce or Langston Hughes, they are just dwarfstars in a vast universe ofstellar
talents? Or-as this thesis plans to explore-may we tell them, and rightly, that they
already possess the tools for creativity? And may we further assert that the tools they
choose for expression may affect the products ofthat expression?
2
3
1. Determining creativity
How exactly does one define creativity? Moreover, should it be defined? Before we can
test subjects for levels ofcreative thinking, we must determine what constitutes creative
thought. However, no consensus exists among psychologists asked to make that
determination. Some assert that creativity has a set ofidentifiable features that can be
quantified; some argue that the response ofthe audience to the product is the best way to
determine whether a product is creative. Still others say that there is no way to define
creativity (Amabile, Social 17). The act ofcreation, as Arthur Koestler reveals in the
landmark 1964 book The Act ofCreation, is "based on essentially the same underlying
pattern" whether the domain is science, music, poetry, mathematics, or painting; it is in
the judging that distinctions are found, for different criteria are used to assess products of
different domains. Creating is, as he points out, "always a leap into the dark, a dive into
the deeps, and the diver is more likely to come up with a handful ofmud than with a
coral" (330). The study presented and discussed later in this thesis focuses on creativity 
specifically, linguistic creativity, that which is exhibited by writers ofnarrative-and
how to judge the products ofthat creativity; indeed, the point is to decide how to tell the
"coral" from the "mud."
Thomas Ward, Steven Smith, and Jyotsna Vaid (1997) point to recent studies
showing that linguistic creativity in children can develop as early as age seven, when they
begin to understand figurative expression, and in particular, idiom (158). The process by
which children develop figurative language, they say, lasts from about age seven to age
eleven. As children develop the ability to look beyond the obvious "local" meaning of
4
words to search for a more universal or coherent meaning, they acquire the ability to
comprehend and even produce figurative speech on their own (159).
Popular today is a theory that each ofus prefers a particular "style" oflearning:
tactile, visual, or verbal/aural. We learn to rely on these methods as children, and as we
grow to adulthood, we excel when we can learn in our preferred method (John-Steiner
11). The most creative individuals develop unique ways oflearning that often involve
intense immersion in a single subject to the exclusion ofall others-a situation that most
public schools in the Western world do not allow children to enjoy. Those with linguistic
creativity often grow up in environments in which spoken and/or written words rule, and
they develop a preference for verbal learning. Ifthese individuals are given the freedom
to play with language as adults in the same way they did as children, creative works often
result.
Must we define creativity before we can study and assess it? According to
Stephen Kosslyn, no: "[I]t is not necessary to begin with a crisp definition ofan entity in
order to study it. ... It is hard to define something one knows little about" (qtd. in
Amabile, Social 17). I will assert further that not having a definition ofan entity is the
best reason to study it.
In studying creativity, however, another problem ofdefinition emerges: whether
to study the person or simply the product. J. P. Guilford, in 1950, argued that the
definition ofcreativity must come from studying creative personality, that behavioral
traits are the hallmark ofthe creative person (qtd. in Amabile 19). But, as Amabile points
out, "most explicit definitions have used the creative product as the distinguishing sign of
creativity" (19). Some theorists go further to claim that creative products fall into one of
5
four categories: scientific, musical, artistic, or verbal (20). In the next section, I will
discuss the currently accepted creativity "tests," many ofwhich focus on creative
personality, not creative product. I will then show how a subjective method ofassessing
creative product, instead ofpersonality, may be in some ways superior for the assessment
ofcreativity.
6
2. Measuring creativity
Before devising an improved method for "measuring" creativity, we must look briefly at
the previous methods and discuss how they fall short. Creativity tests fall into three
categories: personality inventories, biographical inventories, and behavioral assessments.
Personality inventories designed to assess the characteristic traits ofcreative
people include such tests as E. Paul Torrance's "What Kind ofPerson Are You?" and
Harrison G. Gough's Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List. In each,
respondents choose adjectives to describe themselves, with some adjectives being defined
by the designer ofthe test as "positively related to creativity" (Amabile, Social 21). The
trouble with self-report inventories is that creative or highly intelligent persons can easily
choose answers that show themselves to be a certain personality type. Also, the test's
assessment ofan individual's creativity is based upon the test designers' subjective
analysis ofindividuals the designers deemed creative. While the subjectivity ofthe
assessment is not, by itself, enough to make this type oftest suspect, the combination of
subjectivity and the ease with which the test subject can skew the results makes the self 
inventory an inappropriate choice for measuring creativity.
Biographical inventories-a second type ofcreativity test-include such
information as "family histories," "educational histories," "leisure activities," "physical
characteristics," and the somewhat vague "miscellaneous." The designers ofthese tests
interviewed subjects rated high in creativity and others rated low or average in creativity,
and then listed from fifty to several hundred items to which test subjects could be
compared (Amabile, Creativity 24). The trouble with these tests is that ifthe subject does
7
not compare favorably to the subjects used to set up the test (in one case, NASA
engineers and scientists whose habits and histories were extensively catalogued), whether
the subject produces work that may be considered creative is irrelevant; the test has
condemned him or her to a lifelong sentence ofordinariness.
A third, and more common, form ofcreativity assessment is the behavioral test.
Guilford, Torrance, and Michael Wallach and Nathan Kogan have devised popular
behavioral inventories to which many schoolchildren have been subjected since the
1950s. Guilford's "Unusual Uses" test, for example, asks the subject to think ofas many
uses as possible for some common object. Wallach and Kogan's tests comprise five
subtests, each ofwhich requires children to respond to a battery ofquestions-for
example, "Name all the things you can think ofthat make a noise." Finally, the Torrance
tests, perhaps the most well known behavioral inventories, place children into groups and
test them on such criteria as these: (1) fluency-the production oflarge numbers ofideas;
(2) flexibility-the production ofa large variety ofideas; (3) elaboration-the
development and embellishment ofideas; and (4) originality-the application ofideas
that occur infrequently or are not "obvious" responses (Amabile, Creativity 24).
As Amabile asks in Creativity in Context, is it appropriate to use these tests to
label people as creative? She cites William C. Ward (1974), who argues that test scores
should be given more precise labels that reflect more accurately the ability or criterion
being assessed (25). Also, subsequent studies have questioned the construct validity
(essentially, whether a test or study measures what it says it measures) ofmany tests as
well as the convergent validity (the actual agreement between or among ratings, gathered
independently ofone another, where measures should theoretically be related) of
8
different test procedures when validated against one another (27). John Dixon (1979) and
Dennis Hocevar (1979), in separate studies, found that originality scores on the Torrance
Tests ofCreative Thinking are greatly dependent upon and influenced by verbal fluency;
labeling verbal fluency as "originality" is perhaps deceptive (28). So while Amabile has
pointed out some flaws in current methods ofcreativity assessment, she also asserts that
creativity tests and subjective assessments ofproducts are useful for creativity research 
because they "likely measure particular cognitive styles and skills that are conducive to
creativity" (Creativity 40).
Attempts have been made to create tests that would assess creative products
objectively, as opposed to the subjective methods already discussed. One such attempt
was designed by Dean Simonton (1980), who devised a method for quantifying
originality ofmusical themes. Simonton's test compared themes by 479 classical
composers and assessed them mathematically to assign an overall originality score.
Amabile's argument against using this method to assess creativity is twofold: first,
applying this method to other domains, many ofwhich do not easily lend themselves to
mathematical description, would be difficult, ifnot impossible; and more importantly,
"this technique cannot distinguish the creative from the merely bizarre" (Social 27).
As an alternative to these attempts at "objective assessment"-most ofwhich tum
out to be largely subjective anyway-she devised her Consensual Technique for
Creativity Assessment. I have structured my own study using some elements ofthis
technique. Part 3 ofthis section discusses the procedural requirements for using this
technique to assess creativity. Part 4 ofthis section discusses research on word processing
and composition. Part 5 outlines relevant research on computers and creativity. And
finally, Part 6 discusses the application ofthe existing research on word processing and
creativity to college-age writers, as an introduction to the study I performed at
Youngstown State University during spring semester 2001. In this study, 68 composition
students in two experimental conditions-longhand writers and word processor users 
created narrative essays. Two qualified judges assessed the essays using three criteria
related to creativity, and the resulting scores were analyzed statistically to determine
whether word processor use affects creativity in college-age writers.
9
10
3. Amabile's Consensual Techniquefor Creativity Assessment; the role ofplay in
creativity and how computers encourage play
In The Social Psychology ofCreativity, Teresa Amabile explains that "[n]early all current
definitions ofcreativity are conceptual rather than operational and were not intended to
be translated into actual assessment criteria" (30). After extensive study and
experimentation, she offers this alternative: the Consensual Technique for Creativity
Assessment.
The development and use ofthis technique require that the researcher understand
and agree with some basic assumptions about creative process. For instance, Amabile
lists the following components ofcreative performance: domain-relevant skills such as
factual knowledge, technical skills, and special talents; creativity-relevant skills, such as
cognitive style, working style, and application ofheuristics for the exploration ofnew
cognitive pathways; and task motivation, including variables that determine how the
subject approaches the given task. Several features ofcognitive style are relevant to
creativity: breaking perceptual set (i.e., using objects and items in a way that is different
from their intended use); breaking cognitive set (i.e., abandoning familiar algorithms, or
ways ofsolving problems, to search for new solutions); understanding complexities;
keeping response options open for as long as possible; suspending judgment; using
"wide" categories (i.e., being able to see relationships between apparently unrelated
pieces ofinformation); having accurate memory; breaking out ofperformance "scripts"
(i.e., being able to examine the predetermined algorithms for solving problems in a given
domain, with the result that the algorithms are questioned and insight gained from that
11
questioning); and using creative perception (i.e., being able to see things differently from
how others see them and being able to "take advantage ofserendipity" by recognizing the
importance ofnew information) (Social 72).
While the individual who exhibits Amabile's components ofcreative performance
may not always produce work uniformly considered creative, Amabile asserts that
knowledge ofthese components will allow the researcher to make an accurate subjective
assessment ofthe creative product and its producer by employing the following
assessment technique.
Using the Consensual Technique for Creativity Assessment requires that the
researcher follow these rules:
1. Choose judges solely for their familiarity with the domain in which the subjects
are being tested;
2. Judges make independent assessments-not in conference with one another, and
not using specific criteria for judging creativity;
3. Judges should assess dimensions other than creativity, such as technical aspects
and aesthetic appeal, ifpossible, so that they can determine whether these
dimensions affect levels of creativity. Assessing other dimensions can also help
determine whether particular social factors (say, living in a one-parent household)
affect creativity much as they affect other dimensions (e.g., technical aspects);
4. Judges rate products relative to one another and not to some list of"master
works" in the domain;
5. Each judge should view products in random order and consider the different
rating criteria in random order;
12
6. To detennine whether the task given to subjects was appropriate for the purposes
ofthe study, examine the judges' ratings. Ifa high level ofinter-judge reliability
exists, ifthe task presents no technical difficulties to subjects in the study, and if
the researcher can show that judged creativity does not increase with the subjects'
experience (in my study, for example, experience with computer word
processors), then the chosen task is appropriate for the purposes ofthe study
(Amabile, Creativity 41-43).
Amabile's theory ofcreativity (as detailed above) assumes, among other things, that
anyone with "nonnal cognitive abilities" can be creative to some degree; that individuals
can exhibit degrees ofcreativity; that although people differ widely in their potential for
creativity, fonnal education seems essential to the development ofthe highest levels of
creativity; and that creativity often involves an eagerness to work hard and be deeply
involved in the project, but it also requires a high level ofintrinsic motivation as well as
"intellectual playfulness and freedom from external constraints" (67; emphasis added).
Amabile is not the only researcher who cites the importance ofplay in fostering
creative process and creative works. Koestler (1964) cites a traditional definition ofplay
as activity removed from "serious aims and ends"-and then asks the obvious question,
what are serious aims and ends? Those that are not playful? As an alternative to being
trapped on this definition treadmill, he suggests we consider play an activity with "a
definite 'primary biological function'-viz. to give free rein to the exploratory drive. But
such a view can only be held once it is recognized that the exploratory drive itself
originates in a 'primary need' equal in importance to the others" (510). He makes a
distinction between the exploratory drive used for problem solving (for example, a child
13
looking for a particular toy in a room) and the exploratory drive used simply for the
pleasure ofexploring (e.g., a child turned loose in a room full oftoys and games, not sure
which he really wants and not particularly concerned with any specific goal in his
exploration). The child in the first instance may seem to the observer to be "playing," but
she is in fact solving a problem-she wants a particular toy, and even ifanother toy that
might be just as much fun to play with appears to her during the search, she will ignore it
in pursuit ofher goal. Conversely, the child in the second example is open to anything
that meets his senses; this is true play, according to Koestler. And it is in true play,
intrinsically motivated but with uncertain outcome, that children often come up with their
most creative products.
Vera John-Steiner, author ofan extensive creativity case study, Notebooks ofthe
Mind, seems to agree with Koestler. Children play, she says, at creative pursuits such as
drawing and painting in what is akin to "the preverbal rehearsal with sound and tonal
variation, which is an essential stage in the acquisition oflanguage" (25). They create art
because it is enjoyable to do so. Later, when their emotions become more complex, they
tend to give up such "childish" forms ofexpression in favor ofthose deemed appropriate
by parents, teachers, and others in their culture. A few lucky ones, through either the
encouragement offamily or the attention ofunusually astute teachers, continue to use
graphic arts--eombining their serious efforts at expression with play-derived visual
media. She quotes Ernest Schachtel, who laments that a culture's effort to integrate its
youth into the accepted forms ofexpression "increasingly supplants the child's original
approach to the objects, and, especially in our time entails the danger ofclosing his
openness toward the world and ofreducing all experiences to the perception of...
14
cliches ..." (qtd. in John-Steiner, 26). John-Steiner's endorsement ofplay is
unequivocal: "New work is born out ofthe playfulness ofthe young, and the freshness of
perception that does not wilt after childhood" (45). Obviously, then, ifwe are to
encourage creativity, we must allow students to work in the medium oftheir choice-and
perhaps even encourage them to "play" once in a while.
How do computers fit into this "definition" ofcreativity and the importance of
play? Mike Sharples, in How We Write (1999), advocates the ability ofcomputers to
bring play into creative writing. He discusses the work ofMichael Joyce, author and
designer ofthe Afternoon hypertext fiction. In this early hypertext, which contained more
than 500 episodes and more than 900 internal links, explorers could follow a different
part ofthe story each time they visited-even ifthey clicked on the same spot during
subsequent visits. The creation ofJoyce's work required the ability to create fiction, to
program computers, and to design the visual space in which the story takes place (194).
Computer games, too, offer the creator and the user numerous opportunities to
explore creative avenues. Early games such as Dungeons and Dragons, a role-playing
game revolving around storytelling, evolved into text-based computer games, e.g.,
Colossal Adventure. Many teachers now create hypertexts oftheir own for use in the
classroom; as Sharples points out, a hypertext he created "played an essential part in the
children's development ofwriting abilities. It gave them a dynamic medium for
composing and revising. It also acted as a bridge between descriptive and narrative
writing, since the game turned their descriptions into the setting for a journey through [a
virtual haunted] house" (195). Modem programs allow multiple players to participate at
once, thereby encouraging interactive creativity.
15
Some software packages, ofcourse, are designed not to encourage the creativity
ofthe user, but to display their own creativity (or that ofthe author)-indeed, to attempt
to create what writers create. Margaret Boden discusses such software in Artificial
Intelligence and Natural Man (1987). One such package, Tale-Spin (which, as the name
implies, "spins tales"), generates stories by using "planning structures ... which
represent goals and methods ofachieving those goals" (311). Somewhat more
sophisticated than its predecessors, Tale-Spin starts with a character and a problem and
then goes about solving that problem. Characters are defined by description on three
scales--eompetition, dominance, and familiarity-and can be introduced at key points to
complicate the process ofsolving the initial problem. Another story generator, called Ex 
Spectre, uses a simple system offrames (called by the author, C. J. Rieger, "conceptual
overlays") to interpret stories. Ex-Spectre uses "stereotyped conceptual overlays, together
with 'common-sense algorithms' ... to respond to text in the sort ofway required ofthe
reader ofa detective story" (311). The trouble with programs is that they rely on
algorithms-and ifthere is one thing most creativity researchers agree on, it is that
creative thought occurs outside ofestablished algorithms. Even ifno idea can be said to
originate from "nothing"-in that all problem solving involves the thinker's prior
experiences to some extent--eertainly an idea that originates from following the same
paths ofthought that have produced the majority ofunoriginal ideas in a given brain will
not generally be considered novel or creative. Boden concludes, then, that creativity,
"like learning and problem solving, involves the production ofnew thoughts from old"
(298).
16
If, then, computers cannot produce creative ideas, should we assume that they are
the wrong tool for creative endeavors? Taking such a position seems extreme. The
problem lies in counting on the tool to do the work: We should no more expect a
computer program to write an essay for us than we would expect a drill to build a
bookshelf-or, for that matter, design one. People designed and built bookshelves before
the cordless power drill was invented. Building took longer, but the bookshelfgot built.
Now, the process has been opened up to more people by the addition oftools such as the
power drill. Perhaps at one time, people who could not turn a screwdriver with enough
power to drive a screw into a board were forced to buy ready-made products; now, they
can put together an entire bookshelf in minutes.
We can treat the computer as a power drill and simply enjoy the ease it brings to
the writing process. Or, ifwe use our imagination a bit, we can take the analogy a step
further to assert that the power drill may have affected the way people think about
building: Perhaps people who never would have dreamed ofdesigning a piece of
furniture before the advent ofthe power drill can now visualize themselves not only
building furniture but also designing it to their own needs and specifications. Because
they know the ease with which they will be able to assemble it, and because they know
that the drill can do things their hands cannot, they can add design elements to the
furniture that might not have occurred to them otherwise. Similarly, a person who, before
computers, might never have considered writing anything longer than a letter may now
think nothing ofsitting down in front ofa word processor and typing out the first chapter
ofa novel. This is only one way computers may have changed our perception ofthe
writing process. The next section will discuss how computers have changed the way we
write.
17
18
4. Does wordprocessing amplify studentpeiformance in writing tasks?
In 1992, Ronald Kellogg and Suzanne Mueller perfonned two studies to assess the effect
ofword processing on writing perfonnance; in each, they studied the perfonnance of
students writing in longhand versus those using computer word processors. They found
that "only participants with extensive word processing experience matched the quality
and fluency ofthose who wrote in longhand" (33). Using the computer does, however,
restructure the process ofwriting, they found. They quote the research ofLillian
Bridwell-Bowles, P. Johnson, and S. Brehe (1987) and Christina Haas (1989a), whose
studies found that writers using word processors spend less time and effort on planning
and that, because graphics were difficult to create in most word processing programs of
the time, their planning uses fewer graphics; Haas and John Hayes (1986) and W. J.
Hansen and Haas (1988) also discovered that use ofa computer, while improving editing
at the mechanical level, tends to discourage revision ofthe structure as a whole.
In the first study, Kellogg and Mueller found a marginally significant difference
between the handwriting and computer conditions when spelling was considered; because
their judges used spelling as one ofthe criteria for rating style, the computer essays were
often rated lower in style. [The judges in my study were instructed not to consider
spelling, for reasons that will be explained later.] They also found that the computer users
wrote fewer words per minute than the longhand writers. I suspect, however, that a more
recent study, perfonned strictly on elementary-age students, would have much different
results because students are more likely to grow up using a computer and learning how to
type than they were ten years ago. As Kellogg and Mueller admit, their study was
19
hindered by the fact that some subjects undoubtedly had more typing and word
processing experience than others; to judge accurately the level ofperformance
amplification, they add, they should perhaps have chosen subjects with a high level of
experience.
The second experiment used the same subjects, but this time the subjects were
given a survey asking them to rate their experience with computers, and products ofthe
experiment were assessed based upon responses to this survey. After rating the products,
Kellogg and Mueller found that even those subjects who rated themselves highly skilled
at computer use fared no better in terms ofwriting quality than those writing in longhand.
Those subjects with modest experience, however, did poorly, suggesting that their lack of
experience "diverted attention from applying relevant knowledge to composing" (43).
Indeed, other researchers have found that much ofthe modifying and editing done on
word processors has either no effect or deleterious effect on the quality ofthe work.
Similarly, Lois Mayer Nichols (1996), in a study performed on elementary-school
writers, found that "quality ofthe composition, accuracy ofgrammar, and reading ease
did not differ significantly" between longhand writers and computer users (159). She
quotes the findings ofGail Hawisher (1986) and Hawisher and Ron Fortune (1989), done
at the high school and college level, showing no significant difference in quality between
computer writing and handwritten work (160). However, Nichols also mentions the meta 
analysis performed by Robert Bangert-Drowns (1993), who found that nearly two-thirds
ofsuch studies did, in fact, show improvement in the quality ofwriting when subjects
used word processors (160).
20
In a study of 171 Texas sixth-graders, Penny Campbell (1987) found that
students' attitudes toward computer use varied depending upon their computer skills.
Students with average and high levels ofskills demonstrated higher positive responses to
the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) than did those with only basic skills. In the same
year, Karin Miller Wiburg studied 69 fourth-graders in California who were divided into
three groups: The first group used computer programming activities to create their
projects; the second group used applications such as word processing and graphics
software; and the third, control group had no special instruction but used computer 
assisted instructional software. In an analysis ofwritten products, the treatment groups
(those who used programming activities or word processing/graphics software for their
projects, as opposed to students in the control group, who used only instructional
software) both showed higher scores in higher-level cognitive skills than did the control
group. The group using the programming activities achieved the highest scores ofall.
These studies do not, however, deal with "creativity"-none ofthem claims to
assess aspects ofthe creative process or ofcreativity in either product or producer. In
fact, little experimental research exists, outside ofAmabile's work, on the relationship
between computer use and creativity. A few articles discuss creative people using
computers; for example, Trevor Owen's 1995 article in English Journal, "Poems That
Change the World: Canada's Wired Writers," recounts the story ofa group ofstudents
composing poetry as part ofan online group called WIER, or "Writers in Electronic
Residence." As Owen asserts, "[T]he computer is no more a tool than Shakespeare is a
book" (49). He calls the computer a "catalyst," an "experience": "The computer is not
simply a tool, not a pen, but an experience. A field trip" (49). Did the computer
21
encourage creativity? Ifnothing else, it certainly engaged both student and instructor, as
Owen points out: "Many students seemed surprised that ... their teachers were actually
interested in what they had to say." Suddenly, students could see their instructors as more
than just correcting machines with red ink flowing from their fingertips (50).
Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe (1998) agree with Owen's view ofthe computer:
[C]omputers were becoming increasingly important in educational settings 
not simply because they are tools for writing (they are not simply tools; they are,
indeed, complex technological artifacts that embody and shape the ideological
assumptions ofan entire culture), but rather because these machines can serve as
powerful catalytic forces in the lives of teachers and students. (Hawisher and
Selfe, 333)
However, as mentioned above, their study (1987) ofcomputer-assisted instruction in
college classrooms found that students "neither revised more nor wrote better essays on
computers with word processing capabilities" than they did with pen and paper or
typewriter (336). The sole benefits seemed to be more drafts and greater fluency.
One study that deals directly with computers and creativity shows no benefit to
computer-assisted instruction (CAl). In her study of 128 fourth-graders in Oklahoma,
Sheryl Shanahan (1986) gave two experimental groups of32 students each the task of
using a dialogue form ofcomputer-assisted instruction to generate a word bank for
creative writing, and she assigned two control groups of32 students each to a classroom
without this form ofCAL Her subjects were given pre- and post-test Torrance Tests,
those for Creative Thinking and Evaluation ofOriginality and Interest. Students in the
experimental groups scored no better than students in the control groups. However, as
discussed in the section on Tests ofCreativity, the Torrance Tests may not be reliable
indicators ofcreativity.
22
Albert Rouzie (2000), in an article in Computers and Composition, praised the
possibilities inherent in modem software, citing the "playfulness ofelectronic discourse
and how it might reshape student composition" (142). Using and composing hypertexts
gives student writers an opportunity to work in a textual, as well as graphical and aural,
space, and they are aware that they can give their readers a greater understanding and
experience ofthe information they are sharing than would have been possible with simple
text. (Think, for example, ofa student publishing a Web site on a research topic: The
student can provide the text ofa paper, as well as pictures, sounds, and links to more
information about the topic.) As Rouzie puts it, "the best ofthis play opens writers and
readers to the text as dramatic, symbolic action" (142). If, in fact, the best ofcreative
work comes from a level of"intellectual playfulness," as Amabile puts it, then one can
infer from this assertion by Rouzie that computers may offer a great opportunity for
highly creative output.
Ofcourse, word processors can also hinder the creativity ofwriting. In another
recent Computers and Composition article, Alex Vernon (2000), in a study of
computerized grammar checkers, points out that students' willingness to write on the
computer may be hampered by the constant presence ofthose annoying graphics that
may--or may not-point out errors. In Microsoft Word, for example, possible spelling
errors are brought to the author's attention by red wavy underlining. Although the red is a
highly visible color between the default black text and white background usually seen in
Word and other software, red may also remind students ofthe teacher's unforgiving pen.
How, then, do we show students (and, in some cases, their instructors) that
"correct writing is not necessarily good writing" (Vernon, 347)? And again, stressing the
23
play aspect ofcreativity, "How do we encourage students to stretch their syntactic
muscles, to risk incorrect usage in pursuit ofcomplicated structures expressing complex
ideas? How do we teach them to play with sentences" (347; emphasis added)? It is
possible that using computers in the classroom, combined with intensive training in their
use and plenty oftime during which to become comfortable with their various features, is
one reliable way to encourage students to play with words.
Computers bring a new feature to writing: a visual, electronic, interactive feature.
Computers can easily do what manuscripts do with only limited success: They can link
our words to other words, our thoughts to those ofothers, instantly. They can speak
aloud, play music, share a recording ofMartin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
Put simply, computers are fun. A textbook may have an extensive list ofreferences for
the reader to consult, but taking the time to go to the library and look them up is
sometimes difficult. Hypertext, by contrast, offers readers the opportunity to link to the
author's thoughts immediately. Authors can add visual elements without needing graphic
design teams. The visual elements themselves can link to other authors and ideas. The
possibilities boggle the mind. Therefore, it seems perfectly logical to ask the question,
"How does the computer affect the creative process and product?"
24
5. Does using wordprocessors affect creative writing?
In a study using as subjects fifteen fourth-graders in their own classroom setting, Edith
Christensen (1993) made several interesting discoveries about the effects ofcomputer use
on creative writing. First, she found that 14 ofa group of 15 gifted students (12 ofwhom
were rated by their teacher to be underachieving) had immediate gains in story length
when they switched from handwriting to computers. The one exception was a subject
who professed a preference for writing with a pencil and who claimed a dislike for
writing in general.
The underachieving students consistently received higher total quality scores on
their computer-written stories, while the high achievers' stories did not show significant
improvement when the writers used computers (122). And again, the underachieving
group had significant increases in divergent in-depth thinking (a measure ofuniqueness
in the writer's approach, said to be an indication ofhigher-level thinking processes) when
they used computers. Interestingly, Christensen found that these same students, upon
switching back to handwriting, reverted to lower-level thinking processes (124). For the
central idea criterion, the writing tool did not seem to matter; all students showed
improvement over time (125). Regarding the addition ofrelevant information, all but
three subjects showed increased relevant information scores as their stories increased in
length (as they did with computer use) (126). Subjects' organization skills were higher
when they used the computer; however, for most ofthe students, organization scores
steadily increased throughout the study, regardless ofthe writing method (127). Finally,
for the language variety criterion, three offour underachievers in one group scored higher
25
when they wrote on the computer; but overall, the language variety scores did not appear
to increase with length ofstory (99, 127).
The implications ofChristensen's research are many. As she points out, much
could be learned from continuing to follow this group ofstudents as they become more
proficient in computer use and especially in the various tools included with modem word
processing software. The student's attitude toward the writing tool is important, she
concluded, and will affect the results ofhis or her writing.
Early and thorough instruction in the use ofcomputers is also partly responsible
for the success ofa class ofhigh school creative writers in a study done by Dale Irvin
Depweg (1991), although Depweg's methodology focuses on a process-oriented
environment in teaching and not simply on the use ofcomputers. Depweg's classes,
entitled "Creative Writing and the Computer," met in the school's business wing in
rooms where the layout ended up causing more difficulties than it solved: Typewriter
desks were neatly arranged in rows facing the instructor's station, while computer desks
holding Apple machines were interspersed throughout the adjoining classrooms, usually
with two or more facing each other and with work surfaces adjacent to each computer.
However, the rooms presented some problems: For one, Depweg had, in both semesters,
more students than computers; also, some ofthe computers were in one ofthe adjoining
rooms, out ofearshot for much ofthe instruction; and finally, he says that he and his class
were somehow made to feel like guests who "needed to be on our best behavior" (29).
Regardless ofthese possible detriments, however, the course was popular throughout
both semesters and had an increase in enrollment for the second term.
26
The goals ofthe course follow: (1) in-depth instruction and practice in creative
writing with instruction in and access to word processing, (2) workshop format in which
teacher and students published and gave comments on each other's work, (3)
encouragement ofpre-writing and revision, (4) topics to be chosen by students, (5)
emphasis by the instructor on "real" questions rather than "rhetorical" ones, and (6)
encouragement ofstudent conferencing and questions (32). Student work was collected
into individual portfolios. At the end ofthe semester, each student handed in a writing
sample to be evaluated by two outside teacher/evaluators.
The system for evaluation was adapted from one used by Yamhill County
(Oregon) as part ofthe selection process for a student literary magazine. Each sample
was rated on a scale of4-0 (4=outstanding, 3=above average, 2=average, 1=below
average, O=not observed) for each ofsix criteria: (1) unity, coherence, and organization;
(2) clarity, originality, and development oftheme; (3) overall development ofcharacter,
character motivation, and dialogue; (4) overall development ofplot and setting; (5)
sophistication and effectiveness ofdiction and style; and (6) appropriate use ofmechanics
(e.g., spelling). Depweg asked judges to comment also on strengths and weaknesses in
the piece and asked that they list their suggestions for the piece and additional comments,
comparisons, and/or insights (40-41).
The workshop format, combined with intensive instruction in creative writing
process and word processor use, proved a highly successful teaching format for
Depweg's students. All student writing samples were judged to be "well above average,"
with five of 17 students receiving "outstanding" ratings on five ofthe six criteria (163).
Beyond their success in the classroom, Depweg points out, following the instruction in
27
creative writing and word processing, his students took honors in school-wide writing
contests, gained admittance to prestigious colleges, were published in school and outside
publications, and had many other successes.
Concerning the negative aspects ofthe design, Depweg notes that time constraints
were the most common complaint, pointing out that "[t]he technology ofthe computers,
printers, and software, ... which facilitated benefits for writing, revision, and publishing,
could also absorb as much group, individual, and instructor time as they [sic] helped
save" (167). As he accurately laments, spending writing time on trying to make
temperamental network printers print or trying to save corrupted data disks can be a "new
and irritating experience" for the average English language arts instructor (167).
One major positive finding, beyond the successes ofthe writing students, was that
their attitude toward writing was more positive than the attitudes ofDepweg's previous
students in non-workshop formats. He points out that many ofthe students would
continue to write quietly while he lectured, and they were often disappointed at the end of
class time or ifa lecture or conference day was going to take away some oftheir in-class
writing time (170).
Regarding the technology used in this classroom design, Depweg admits that "it
seems somewhat academic to debate whether or not the integration ofword processing
and computers into the English and writing classroom should or will happen" (181).
Indeed, between 1986-87 (when his study took place) and 1991 (when he published his
dissertation), computers went from being a new and wonderful tool in many schools to
being almost ubiquitous in all but the poorest ofdistricts.
28
The two studies cited above-Christensen's and Depweg's-show clear evidence
that computers in the classroom are more than simply the method ofthe day. True, many
oftoday's students grow up using computers in their homes, and many ofthem would be
at a loss in a writing environment in which they were expected to write with pen and
paper. However, computers are more than simply modem (ifexpensive) pens; they are
part ofthe writing process oftoday's writers. Computers have the potential to allow, and
even encourage, greater expression and creativity in the users-given the right classroom
environment and the right training. Throwing a group ofstudents with no training into a
computer lab and expecting them to produce creative work may bring no more success
than asking them to create their work in longhand-and it may hinder the writing process
for those with marginal computer skills. But, as Depweg found, when computer use is
coupled with training in keyboard skills and in word processing software, writers
experience greater benefits.
29
6. How does the existing research on wordprocessor use and creativity apply to
college-age writers?
One type ofstudent neglected in much ofthe existing research is the college writer.
Christensen's study, for example, focused on fourth-graders; Depweg's students were
sophomores through seniors in high school. Much research has been done in college
settings on computer use in classrooms, but none has focused solely on the computer's
relationship to the creative process and individual aspects ofcreativity. The results ofmy
own study show how several generally accepted aspects ofcreativity-namely, novelty
ofidea, word choice, and development/organization-are affected by using computers for
composition. In Section 2, I discuss the methodology and design ofthe study, and in
Section 3, I discuss the results ofthe study in relation to previous research and to the
future ofcomposition classes at the college level. Finally, in Section 4, I present the
results ofa questionnaire on Technology in the Classroom. This questionnaire, designed
as a follow-up to my study, asked students at the same writing level as the test subjects to
respond to eight questions about their level ofexperience and comfort with computer
technology. As a soon-to-be college writing instructor who plans to continue researching
at the doctoral level as training for teaching both creative and technical writing, I am
fascinated by the implications ofcomputer use for creative writers.
Section 2:
A Study of the Effects of Computer Use on
Narrative Essays of College Freshman Writers
30
31
Because ofthe impossibility ofchoosing those criteria that define a creative work-and
therefore, by implication, a creative writer (though some argue that the two are
unrelated)-I settled upon three criteria (idea, word choice, and development/
organization) that are frequently associated with subjective judgments ofcreativity in
writing. In discussions with the judges and with advisors, I determined that using such
criteria as "novelty ofstructure" and "reading ease" would be inadvisable because neither
has been shown to indicate a high level ofcreativity in either product or author.
To determine whether the three creativity-related criteria listed above are affected
by the use ofcomputer word processing software, I devised a study in which five groups
offreshman writers created narratives following a prompt. The study was structured as
follows:
1. Demographics
The student subjects were all part ofa composition course called "Writing I," a beginning
writing course intended for freshmen who, based on performance on a Composition and
Reading Placement Test (CRPT), were judged not to need developmental practice in
writing. Youngstown State University requires that every incoming freshman take two
college writing courses-Writing I and Writing II (a more advanced course in
argumentative writing)-within a certain time following matriculation (students
achieving a lower score than that determined as the minimum for entrance into Writing I
are required to pass a developmental course preceding Writing I). Thus, I judged that the
students in the sample would have roughly the same level ofskill in essay writing.
32
I chose five sections whose instructors were fellow graduate assistants. The fact
that these classes had GAs for instructors should not adversely affect my efforts to
randomize subject selection, for two reasons: First, students do not know they are signing
up for a GA-taught class when registering; and second, the samples were taken early
enough in the semester that any difference between the teaching styles ofnew teachers
and seasoned professors should have had negligible, ifany, effect on the students'
writing.
I structured the study to randomize for day and time ofclass meetings to ensure
that groups did not tend toward one particular type ofstudent--e.g., perhaps a certain
type ofperson prefers to take only early-morning classes on weekdays. As a result, I
sampled five classes, which met on different days ofthe week and at different times
during the day.
The gender breakdown ofthe sample is as follows: 34 subjects were female, and
36 were male (two females were later disqualified because they did not consent to
participate in the study). In the Analysis ofResults section, I will show gender
differences in rating results.
2. Structure ofthe Experiment
This experiment is structured with two independent variables. Factor 1, or the Medium
Factor, has two levels: the handwriting treatment is the use oflonghand to write an essay;
and the computer treatment is the use ofthe computer word processor to write an essay.
Factor 2, or the Gender Factor, is the gender ofthe subject. (See Table 2.1.) My working
hypothesis, or HI, was that the use ofcomputer word processors may slightly affect
33
creativity, depending on the user's level ofcomputer skill, and that the use ofword
processors directly affects length ofessays (i.e., number ofwords). The null hypothesis,
or Ho, was that the use ofword processors has no effect on creativity in each rated
criterion (idea, word choice, and development/organization) and that it has no effect on
essay length.
Table 2.1. Structure of Experiment
Factor 1: Writing Medium
Factor 2:
Gender
Males
Females
16
17
112: Computer
20
15
I chose the Post-Test Only design for this experiment. The experiment was
expressly designed to be a low-stress, culturally neutral exercise. Each class was
randomly divided into two groups: Sample group 1, the "handwriting treatment" group,
was given a handout containing the writing prompt, explicit instructions, and plenty of
lined writing space; sample group 2, the "computer treatment" group, was seated at
computers upon which the writing prompt had already been installed and opened in
Microsoft Word 97. The group with the handout was asked to write with pen or pencil for
the full time (40 minutes), and the computer group was asked to type responses and save
them to a floppy disk, which was supplied for them. The subjects wrote during a normal
class period during which the class met in a computer lab. I made every effort to ensure
that those writing by hand had enough desk space (keyboards were moved and CPUs shut
down to discourage the temptation to check the computer for spelling, etc.). The
instructors and I strongly discouraged talking; however, these efforts met with varied
34
success. In one class, the instructor had to relocate to the back ofthe room to discourage
two computer subjects from loudly chatting about personal topics. While some
researchers suggest that creativity is best encouraged by placing no restraints upon the
subjects, we decided that loud talking was disruptive to those subjects who prefer to work
in a quiet atmosphere.
Because ofresearch suggesting that the subject's awareness ofrewards and/or
evaluation significantly decreases the creativity ofproducts, we made clear to the
participants that they were not being graded on the essay and that they would simply
receive in-class-assignment credit (which differed according to instructor) for the work.
As a result, we hoped that each participant would feel free to "have fun" with the
assignment (the handout even reads, "Please have fun with this assignment!"), without
having to worry about grades or competition.
The time limit for the writing was, as stated above, 40 minutes. As part ofthe
introduction, I informed students that they would be told when they had five minutes, and
then one minute, remaining. They were encouraged to write for the entire time allotted,
although many did not.
3. Prompt
The essay prompt follows: "Write a narrative about the following: One morning, you (or
your main character) awaken to discover that humankind has developed-or been
given-the ability to become invisible at will."
35
4. Other Information on the Assignment
Below the prompt, an area was provided for "brainstorming." Some students made use of
it, making lists, drawing diagrams or flow charts, or writing a short paragraph; others did
not use the area. At the end ofthe writing space, the handouts thanked the participants,
and the computer-based prompt reminded computer users to save their files.
5. Judges and Rating
Three judges rated the essays. One was a Youngstown State University professor
emeritus with 43 years ofteaching experience (including composition, among other
subjects) and eight years ofessay-judging experience with Educational Testing Service;
one was a Youngstown State University professor with 22 years ofteaching experience
(again, including freshman comp); and the third, or "tiebreaker" judge, was a creative
writer with an English degree from a university in England and over ten years ofcreative
writing experience.
It was agreed that a judges' training session was not necessary and could in fact
skew the results ofthe final ratings; therefore, the 68 qualifying essays were given to the
first two judges, who rated them without a training session. Should 1 have chosen judges
based on "homogeneous views ofcreativity" (Amabile, Creativity 42)? "[I]t seems most
appropriate to simply rely on the assumption that experts in a domain do share creativity
criteria to a reasonable degree," says Amabile. "The essence ofthe consensual definition
is that experts in a domain can recognize creativity when they see it, and that they can
agree with one another in this assessment. ... [T]he judges should not be trained by the
experimenter to agree with one another. .." (42).
36
The judges themselves were chosen for a variety ofreasons. The two professors
were chosen for their vast experience in judging writing samples; the creative writer was
chosen because she could judge samples from the point ofview ofa creative person. One
professor comes from an English education background and has worked in diverse
populations throughout the eastern and southern United States, as well as being a rater for
ETS; the other comes from an American studies and film studies background and has
much experience with developmental college writers, in addition to scoring English
Placement Tests at YSU for many years. Although the third judge had no teaching
experience, she was deemed qualified to rate on originality in the three criteria chosen.
The judges rated each ofthe 68 essays individually on these three criteria: idea,
word choice, and development/organization. One judge suggested that the term
"creativity" not be used in describing the criteria, for doing so would imply that these
criteria define creativity, and I did not wish to suggest that creativity could or should be
defined in this manner, although I do contend that high ratings in these three areas may
suggest a high level ofcreativity in the author. Accordingly, I acknowledge that the rating
system is, as Amabile admits, strictly subjective (Social 38).
Although the judges and I considered using the holistic scoring method (as
defined by ETS), our decision to rate each essay on three criteria made defining our
method as "holistic" inappropriate. Holistic scoring asks the reader to score an essay on
the "total impression it creates rather than for individual aspects" (ETS, "What Is Holistic
Scoring?" online). Analytic (or primary trait) scoring, on the other hand, allows the
reader to examine individual aspects ofan essay-appropriate to my study, because I
wanted to see ifusing computer word processors affects different aspects ofcreativity
37
differently. Our analytic method is, however, derived from ETS's holistic method: In
most oftheir assessments, "two readers provide separate, independent judgments. Each
reader awards a single score for the overall quality ofthe essay based on an integrated set
ofcriteria ... [typically including] organization, development ofideas, style, mechanics,
diction, and usage..." (ETS, online).
Each judge was given a sheet with the numbers from 1 to 68 (one number
corresponding to each ofthe 68 essays). The scale chosen for rating each criterion was 1 
4, with 4 being the highest possible rating. The judges and I decided that a scale of 1-4
was preferred over, for example, 1-5, because when the latter scale is used, judges tend
to lump papers upon which they are undecided into the middle, rating them a 3. We also
agreed that more than four or five possible ratings points would be excessive for so few
criteria. Judges were to give each essay three scores: one for idea, one for word choice,
and one for development/organization. Judges were instructed to go through the essays in
random order, even though the essays were already numbered randomly. Judges worked
independently ofone another and did not confer at any time during the rating process.
I randomized the essays in the following manner: After collecting all essays, both
handwritten and computer written, I made photocopies ofthe handwritten essays and
employed two fellow graduate assistants as transcribers. Using the same Microsoft Word
template that subjects used during the experiment, the transcribers entered the
handwritten text, so that all handwritten essays could be printed on a laser printer and
would look no different from the computer-composed essays. Text was entered exactly as
written, including misspelled words. The reason for including the misspellings is that,
due to an unforeseen problem with the use ofform fields in Microsoft Word 97 (the
38
Spell-Check feature does not work on text entered in a form field), the computer writers
could not easily use Spell-Check. As a result, judges did not consider spelling accuracy in
rating the essays. Ifthe handwritten essay included text in the Brainstorming area, it was
typed into the computer file; however, any handwritten graphics (such as flow charts)
were not included. Also, none ofthe computer writers used graphics in the Brainstorming
area, and judges did not consider any information in the Brainstorming area when
assessing the essay. In this manner, I ensured that all essays appeared exactly the same to
the judges; therefore, no possibility existed for bias toward either handwritten or
computer-written work.
6. Avoiding Threats to Internal Validity ofthe Study
The main method I used to avoid threats to validity was randomization. I took care to
randomize selection ofsubjects (to the extent possible; some inter-subject similarity was
desirable, namely similarity in level ofwriting experience), times ofclasses, days of
classes, and assignment ofsubjects to testing conditions (e.g., handwriting or computer).
I equalized the testing conditions as much as possible and controlled for variables
that might affect subject behavior. Each class took place in a well-equipped computer lab;
each class had roughly one to two classes' notice ofthe upcoming essay assignment and
was told very little about the assignment and nothing about its experimental nature. When
I arrived, I briefly explained that the subjects were taking part in a study but did not detail
the purpose ofthe study, other than to say that the results would be part ofmy thesis and
that anyone who was interested could contact me later to see the work. Subjects were told
that they would be asked to read and sign a consent form for Human Subjects purposes,
39
and that they could choose not to participate in the experiment, with no ill effects on their
grade (provided the essay was completed and turned in to the instructor despite the
participant's unwillingness to allow me to use it in my study). Ofthe 70 essays obtained
over five days, two were disqualified because the students opted not to participate in the
research.
The use ofthe Post-Test Only design avoided the problem ofStatistical
Regression to Mean (a tendency for scores in post-treatment assessments to shift toward
the mean). Because the entire experiment was structured to allow for randomization, no
pre-test was required. Had I not randomized for subject selection and other factors, I
would have had to test each group twice-first having all subjects write one way, then
having them write the other-to get valid results. In addition, the Post-Test Only design
eliminated the need to discourage subjects from discussing the experiment during the
testing period: The entire experiment took place in one day for each group, and the
likelihood that subjects from one class would pass on information about the experiment
to subjects in another class was slim, considering the large number ofstudents taking
Writing I in a given semester. Finally, this design prevented the problem of"mortality,"
or subject dropouts between pre- and post-test.
7. Additional Criteria Being Considered
In addition to the individual subjective ratings based on the three criteria listed above, I
noted demographic data for each group, including ages, ethnicity, and gender ofsubjects;
the date and time each experiment was performed; the number ofsubjects in each class
40
who wrote their essays on computers, versus the number writing by hand; and the total
number ofsubjects in each class. (See Table 2.2.)
I also noted and considered the total number ofwords in each essay. I hoped to
determine whether a correlation exists between number ofwords in an essay and method
used for writing, and also whether a correlation exists between number ofwords and
level ofcreativity (in the three areas noted) ofthe essay. Finally, I wished to determine
whether a difference exists between genders in either writing condition (handwriting or
computer).
41
Table 2.2. Test Group Demographics
GROUP A n=12 t=12:30 p.m. nm=6 nt=6
ASBURY n1=6
I
m=6 nc=12 no=O
GROUP B n=18 t=11 :00 a.m. nm=8 nt=10
BLEI n1=9
I
m=9 nc=17 no=1
GROUPC n=17 t=10:00 a.m. nm=11 nt=6
BENTON
n1= 8 I
m=9 nc=15 no=2
GROUP D n=16 t=1:00 p.m. nm=8 nt=8
GRANGER n1=6
I
m=10 nc=14 no=2
GROUPE n=7 t=12:00 noon nm=3 nt=4
WEST n1=4
I
m=3
(Saturday)
nc=6 no=1
Note: Two students, both in the~zcondition (computer), opted out of participation. The total for the nz column 
37--does not reflect the removal of the essays by the two students who opted out.
Key:
n=number of subjects n1=number of subjects m=number of subjects t=time of day test
in group in~1(handwriting in jJ2 (computer given (all on
condition) condition) weekdays except as
noted)
nm=number of male nt=number of female nc=number of no=number of non-
subjects in group subjects in group Caucasian subjects in Caucasian subjects in
group group
~z
~1
Section 3:
Analysis ofExperiment Results
42
43
1. Summary ofOverall Results
Judges rated all 68 essays in each ofthree criteria (idea, word choice, and
development/organization). As a result, judges had three opportunities per essay to agree
or disagree, or 204 opportunities overall. Out ofthese 204 opportunities, the judges'
ratings differed by more than one point on only 29 occasions, or 14.2% ofthe time. I
chose to count only those differences ofmore than one point: Although one judge tended
to give higher scores than the other, both judges gave higher scores to the same essays;
therefore, I reasoned that only when the judges' ratings disagreed by more than one rating
point should I consider them discrepant. Paul Diederich, in Measuring Growth in English
(1974), defends a reliability of.80 (or 80%) as "adequate for practical decisions in the
ordinary course ofschoolwork" (2). I am pleased that the judges I chose achieved an
inter-rater reliability of.858 (or nearly 86%). Having obtained this reasonably high level
ofreliability, I can defend my decision not to use "model" essays to train the judges.
After collecting all the scores for each ofthe three criteria being judged, I used the
mean scores to compute the effect (ifany) ofcomputer use on these three criteria. Using
methods from a statistics text for students in psychology and education (Gravetter and
Wallnau 1985), I then performed an Analysis ofVariance (ANOVA) to determine
whether my results were statistically significant. I obtained F-ratios for each criterion of
<1, meaning the ANOVA test discerned no treatment effect. Generally, F-ratios of>1 are
necessary for statistical significance, and with such a small sample (68 subjects), much
higher F-ratios (closer to 3.9-4.0, according to Gravetter and Wallnau) than I obtained
would have been necessary to show a significant treatment effect. (See Tables 3.1-3.3.)
44
Table 3.1. F-Test Two-Sample for Variances: Idea Criterion
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
Variable 1
2.666666667
0.432291667
33
32
0.78718758
Variable 2
2.728571429
0.549159664
35
34
Variable 1 corresponds to the Handwriting condition; Variable 2 corresponds to
the Computer condition. Observations=the number of subjects in each test group.
The F value tells us that the treatment (computer use) had no effect.
Table 3.2. F-Test Two-Sample for Variances:
Word Choice Criterion
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
Variable 1
2.439393939
0.464962121
33
32
0.851238345
Variable 2
2.428571429
0.546218487
35
34
Variable 1 corresponds to the Handwriting condition; Variable 2 corresponds to
the Computer condition. Observations=the number of subjects in each test group.
The F value tells us that the treatment (computer use) had no effect.
Table 3.3. F-Test Two-Sample for Variances:
Development/Organization Criterion
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
Variable 1
2.666666667
0.369791667
33
32
0.570385072
Variable 2
2.814285714
0.648319328
35
34
Variable 1 corresponds to the Handwriting condition; Variable 2 corresponds to
the Computer condition. Observations=the number of subjects in each test group.
The F value tells us that the treatment (computer use) had no effect.
Overall, scores did not increase significantly in any ofthe three criteria judged
(meaning my null hypothesis, or Ho, was true). The simple result ofthe experiment is that
using a computer word processor does not significantly increase the writer's scores in
creativity-related areas such as Idea, Word Choice, and Development/Organization. The
computer did, however, affect Word Count: The average word count for essays written in
45
the computer condition was 18.15% greater than the average for essays written in the
longhand condition. (See Figure 3.1.)
Figure 3.1.
The Effect of Computer Word Processing on
Total Word Count
700·
til 600
"C
o 500
~400
'0
; 300
.c
E 200
;:,
z 100
o
Il!l Handwriting Condition
• Computer Condition
~-_... _-----~---_._._--.._--~._...._-----"
2. Results Analyzed by Gender
The scores do not suggest that we should dismiss the experiment's results, however. Ifwe
look at the results by gender, we see greater treatment effects (benefits ofusing the
computer) for females than for males in all criteria. For example, while the males in this
study received almost no benefit (less than a percentage point) in the computer condition
in the Idea criterion, the females scored 9.25% higher when using the computer. (See
Figure 3.2.) The benefits to both genders are negligible in the Word Choice criterion
(males' scores increased 1.41%, females' 2.81%), but both genders scored higher in
Development/Organization in the computer condition: males' scores increased by 5.98%,
and females' by 9.70%. (See Figure 3.3.)
~
~-_--~---_._._--
46
Figure 3.2.
,'------' --'---- ,------- ---- ---,,---, -----
Comparison of Ratings By Gender: Idea
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Females
Figure 3.3.
,• Males
[]lFemales
Comparison of Ratings By Gender: Development!
Organization
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
o
• Males
[]lFemales,
The increase in mean word count is not surprising; unlike the subjects ofsimilar
studies in the past, these subjects, for the most part, grew up using computers and have a
reasonable level ofkeyboarding skill. (See Section 4: Responses to "Technology in the
Classroom Questionnaire" for a discussion ofsubjects' self-described computer and word
processing skills.) But the by-gender results are curious: Why would males gain no
47
benefit from using word processing, while females using computers scored nearly 10%
higher than females writing in longhand in two criteria related to creativity?
The criteria used to rate each essay are, theoretically, indicators ofcreativity in
the product. Should we assume, then, that the male subjects produced less creative
products than the female subjects? The results ofthis study are not conclusive enough to
allow us to make that assumption. At the very least, the results may indicate a need for
further research into gender differences in areas such as creativity, keyboarding skill, and
computer knowledge; ideally, these studies would use a much larger number ofsubjects
than my study did and would be run by both computers-and-composition researchers and
sociallbehavioral scientists. My study was limited by lack ofaccess to a large number of
subjects, and perhaps by the choice ofprompt for the essay, which may have encouraged
gender differences; however, I hope to continue this research, using my own students as
subjects, for many years. Every new group offreshmen seems to have better computer
skills than the group before it-and, correspondingly, less desire to use longhand for
composition. Eventually, forcing a subject to write an essay in longhand may even be
considered some sort ofpunishment, as computers become an indispensable tool in
students' lives.
48
Section 4:
Responses to the "Technology in the Classroom"
Questionnaire
49
1. Introduction
In an attempt to understand better the skills and needs not only ofthe students I tested but
also offreshman writers in general, I administered a detailed questionnaire asking
respondents to describe their experience with computers, word processing software, and
the Internet. (See Appendix I for the complete questionnaire.) I hoped that the responses
would help me interpret the creativity ratings on the 68 essays; for example, I wanted to
know how likely students in a particular age group are to have grown up using a
computer at home. The questionnaire turned out to be extremely useful, and I plan to put
the results into an Internet-accessible database and to make the questionnaire itself into a
Web form that can be accessed by many composition classes. With only 56 completed
questionnaires from which to make assumptions, I am looking forward to making
judgments that are more accurate by using a greater number ofrespondents.
I must qualify any assumptions by stating that not all ofthe 68 subjects who took
part in the essay experiment also filled out the questionnaire; only about 25 ofthose
students had time to fill out the questionnaire after doing the essay. The other responses
came from three other College Writing I classes. Comparing the percentages ofstudents
in each age group and ofeach gender, I found the questionnaire group to be similar to the
essay group. Therefore, it seems logical to infer that assumptions made about the
questionnaire group may also be applicable to the essay group.
50
2. Summary ofResults
Overall, the responses show that most students, regardless ofage group or gender, have
some computer and word processing experience. Only a small percentage claimed to be
"novice" users. In fact, almost 40% ofmales and nearly 54% offemales said they have
"extensive" computer experience. (See Table 4.1.)
Table 4.1. Level of Experience with Computers
Question 1: I would describe my experience level in
computer use as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I am a novice computer user 5 17.86% C 0.00%
I have limited computer experience 4 14.29% 9 32.14%
I have taken at least one class in which computers were
kJsed 4 14.29% 10.71%
I have taken several classes in which computers were used,
",nd/or I have extensive computer experience from using a
15home computer 11 39.29% 53.57%
I am an expert computer user 10.71% 1 3.57%
Respondents 27 28
Note: Not all respondents answered every question; therefore, some totals do not add up to 100%.
Likewise, very few-none ofthe males and only one ofthe females-said they
"cannot type at all." At least halfhave some level oftyping skill, and about a third ofthe
men and over a fifth ofthe women said they have "extensive" typing experience. (See
Table 4.2.)
Table 4.2. Keyboarding skill
Question 2: I would describe my keyboarding (typing)
skills as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I cannot tvpe at all C 0.00% 1 3.57%
I have limited tvpina skills 1C 35.71% 6 21.43%
I have taken a typing class or have otherwise developed
!load tvpina skills f 28.57% 11 39.29%
I have taken extensive keyboarding classes, and/or I have
6typed a maiority of mv schoolwork~32.14% 21.43°1c
I work or have worked at a job requiring typing speeds of
12,000 kph or 60 wpm or more, or have equivalent
tvpina/kevboardina skill 1 3.57% 4 14.29%
Respondents 28 28
17,86%
39,29%
35,71%
~
51
All but one ofthe males and all but one ofthe females have some experience with
word processing software. Halfthe men and almost 68% ofthe women have taken at
least one class in a word processing application or have equivalent knowledge. (See
Table 4.3.) The vast majority ofboth genders have used Microsoft Word-almost 86% of
men and 93% ofwomen; in addition, a large percentage ofboth have used Corel
WordPerfect, and about a fifth ofthe men and a tenth ofthe women have used Macintosh
software. (See Table 4.4.)
Table 4.3. Experience with Word Processing Software
Question 3a: I would describe my familiarity with word
processing software as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
II am not at all familiar with word processing software 1 3.57% 1 3.57%
I, have limited exoerience with wo software~32.14% S 28.57%
~~avetaken a class in a wp application or have equivalent
xoerience/knowledoe ! 17.86% 1 46.43%
I: have taken several classes in multiple wp applications or
! €have eauivalent experiencelknowledge 32.14% 21.43%
II am an exoert wo user
,
14.29% C 0.00%
Respondents 28 28
Table 4.4. Familiar Word Processing Applications
Question 3b: Software with which I am familiar (check
all that apply):
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
torel WordPerfect 10 35.71% 1S 64.29%
Microsoft Word or Works 24 85.71% 26 92.86%
Macintosh aoolications 6 21.43% 3 10.71%
bther (please soeciM 0 0.00% 10.71%
Responses 40 50
Note: Because respondents could choose more than one response to this question, total responses are greater
than totals for the other questions.
Interestingly, more men than women had computers at home when they were
growing up. Almost 79% ofmen, versus only 39% ofwomen, had a computer at home. A
future researcher may wish to study whether girls who have only female siblings-or no
~
~~ave
52
siblings-are less likely to have had computers at home than are girls who have male
siblings. (See Table 4.5.)
Table 4.5. Computers in the Home
Question 4: I would describe my background in relation to
computers as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
~~idnot have a computer at home when I was growing up (for
hatever reason-they weren't invented yet, we didn't have the
,
10money, etc.) 10.71% 35.71%
~~idnot have a computer in my home but had access to one
~
Isewhere 10.71% 7 25.00%
I~~ada computer at home when I was growing up but was not
0ermitted to use it 1 3.57% 0.00%
II had a comouter at home and used it at least occasionally 21 75.00% 11 39.29%
I
Respondents 28 28
Reflecting the fact that the majority ofrespondents fall into the "traditional
student" age of 18-22, the vast majority ofboth genders prefer to write using either a
combination oflonghand and computer or solely on computer. Only about 15% of
women and 11 % ofmen are reluctant to use computers in the composition process. (See
Table 4.6.)
Table 4.6. Use of Computers for Writing
Question 5: I would describe my use of computers for
writing as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process, including
mal drafts 1 3.57% 1 3.57%
I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process, but will
reluctantlv tvoe anv final drafts or have them tvoed for me 7.14% 10.71%
I use a combination of handwriting and typing in my writing
13~process 46.43% 32.14°;'
I do very little or no handwriting and prefer to perform the entire
12 1Ewritina process on comouter 42.86% 53.57%
Respondents 28 28
When asked about their level ofcomfort with computer technology, the majority
express a high level of comfort-93% ofwomen and 79% ofmen-although 15% of
women and 18% ofmen think we rely too heavily upon computers. More males than
~~id
~~id
~
I~~ad
~
53
females said they are "uncomfortable" with using computers-18% ofmen versus fewer
than 8% ofwomen. (See Table 4.7.)
Table 4.7. Level of Comfort with Computers
Question 6: I would describe my comfort level with
computer technology as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I am very uncomfortable with computers and would prefer not to
have to use them 1 3.57% 1 3.57%
I am uncomfortable with computers but feel I must learn to keep
UP with technology 4 14.29% 1 3.57%
I am comfortable with computers and am eager to learn more
and to ensure their place in my educational future 17 60.71% 22 78.57%
I am comfortable with computers but do not think we should rely
5SO heavily upon them 17.86% 4 14.29%
Respondents 27 28
Most ofthe respondents are familiar with the Internet and the World Wide Web:
While no respondents claimed to have no desire to learn about them, almost 11 % ofmen
said they have "little or no experience and wish to learn more." Halfofmen, and 57% of
women, said they use the Internet and WWW "extensively." (See Table 4.8.)
Table 4.8. Internet and World Wide Web Use
Question 7: I would describe my familiarity with the
InternetIWorld Wide Web as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I have little or no experience with the Internet and do not wish to
Cearn C 0.00% 0.00%
I have little or no exPerience and wish to learn more
-.
10.71% C 0.00%
I have moderate experience using the Internet for mainly
Elpersonallrecreational uses 21.43% 25.00%
I have moderate experience using the Internet for mainly
5~cholasticuses 5 17.86% 17.860/.
I use the Internet extensively for business, recreation, and
1E~choolpurposes 14 50.00% 57.14%
Respondents 28 28
Finally, men and women seem to agree that the Internet is at least somewhat
useful for research and that information found there is at least somewhat reliable. But
fewer than a third ofmen and only a quarter ofwomen do the "majority" oftheir research
~cholastic
~chool
online; and while almost halfofmen said they "always" find high-quality information,
only 18% ofwomen do. (See Tables 4.9 and 4.10.)
Table 4.9. Satisfaction with Online Research
Question 8a: I would describe my level of satisfaction with
using the Internet for scholastic purposes as follows:
54
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I do not find the Internet to be a useful tool in scholastic
research 1 3.57% a 0.00%
I find the Internet to be somewhat heloful in research 17 60.71% 21 75.00%
I do the majority of my research online and rarely or never
eannot find what I need 9 32.14% 7 25.00%
Respondents 27 28
Table 4.10. Satisfaction with Quality of Online Information
Question 8b: I would describe the quality of information I
have found on the Internet as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
nformation I find on the Internet is basically worthless 1 3.57% C 0.00%
Spotty: sometimes useful and reliable, sometimes not,
deoendina on source 14 50.00% 21 75.00%
I am always able to find reliable, high-quality information on the
fInternet 13 46.43% 17.86%
Respondents 28 26
55
3. Discussion ofResults
The number ofrespondents ofeach gender in each age group is as follows:
Age Group Gender
Male Female
18-22 21 17
23-30 5 5
31-40 0 4
41-50 1 2
50+ 1 0
In the tables that follow, some columns ofpercentages do not add up to 100%.
Occasionally, one or more respondents skipped a question; I chose to base the
percentages in that column on the total number ofrespondents in that age group, instead
ofthe number who actually responded. Where percentages add up to nearly 100%, errors
are due to rounding to two decimal places.
3a. Question 1: Level ofexperience in computer use
Even though the majority ofall students, both male and female, have at least some
computer experience, it is interesting to note that almost 10% of 18-22-year-old males
consider themselves "novices," and 40% of23-30-year-old males said the same. Also,
men in the 18-22-year-old group are more than twice as likely to consider themselves
"expert" computer users (14.29% ofmales versus 5.88%---one respondent--offemales),
even when their answers to subsequent questions do not necessarily support this claim.
Because ofthe low number ofrespondents over age 40, I will not make assumptions
about this age group based on findings from the questionnaire.
56
Almost halfofmen in the 18-22 age group and a fifth ofthose in the 23-30 age
group said they have taken "several" computer classes or have "extensive" computer
experience, while none ofthe respondents 31 and over do. Ofthe women, however, more
than halfofthe 18-22 age group, 60% ofthe 23-30 age group, 25% ofthe 31-40 age
group, and all the women 41-50 said they have taken "several" classes or have
"extensive" experience. The wording ofthe question included either classes using
computers or equivalent experience on a home computer, so either women are taking
more computer-related classes than men, or women are making up for the lack of
computers in their homes by finding machines to use elsewhere. (See Table 4.11.)
Table 4.11.
Question 1: I would describe my
experience level in computer use as
follows: MALES,AGES FEMALES, AGES
18-22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+ 18-22 23·30 31-40 41-50 50+
I am a novice com uter user 9.52% 40.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
I have limited com uter ex erience 19.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.41% 40.00% 50.00% 0.00%
I have taken at least one class in which
m uters were used 9.52% 20.00% 0.00% 100.00% 11.76% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%
I have taken several classes in which
omputers were used, and/or I have extensive
mputer experience from using a home
muter 47.62% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 52.94% 60.00% 25.00% 100.00%
14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
3b. Question 2: Level oftyping skill
Overall, only one respondent claimed she "can't type at all." Both ofthe men in the 41
and up group said they have "limited" typing skills, however, versus only one ofthe
women in the same age group; the other three have taken at least one typing class or have
equivalent skill. All ofthe men age 18-30 have at least some typing skills, and at least
60% ofmen in this group have taken a class or have equivalent skill. The ability to type
is crucial in word processor use; without it, student writers are handicapped. Using these
57
responses to analyze the handwriting-versus-computer experiment, we can perhaps
attribute the jump in word count in the computer condition to the great number of
students who begin college with at least some typing skill. (See Table 4.12.)
Table 4.12.
Question 2: I would describe my
keyboarding (typing) skills as follows: MALES,AGES FEMALES, AGES
18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+ 18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
I cannot 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%
28.57% 40.00% 100.00% 100.00% 23.53% 20.00% 25.00% 0.00%
33.33% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.29% 60.00% 0.00% 100.00%
33.33% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.41% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%
4.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.76% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00%
3c. Question 3: Familiarity with wordprocessing software
No respondent in the 18-22 age group claimed to be completely unfamiliar with word
processing. Only two respondents-one male in the 23-30 age group and one female in
the same group--make that claim. The rest ofthe results are fairly evenly spread across
experience levels and age groups, with about 24% ofboth men and women in the 18-22
age group saying they have "limited" experience, 24% ofmen and 59% ofwomen in that
group having at least one class or equivalent experience, and the rest having had several
classes. About 19% ofmen 18-22 claimed to be "expert" word processor users. (See
Table 4.13.)
58
Table 4.13.
Question 3a: I would describe my
familiarity with word processing software
as follows: MALES,AGES FEMALES, AGES
18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+ 18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%
23.81% 40.00% 100.00% 100.00% 23.53% 40.00% 50.00% 0.00%
23.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 58.82% 0.00% 25.00% 100.00%
33.33% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 40.00% 25.00% 0.00%
19.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Ofthe women, 88% ofthe 18-22 age group and all ofthe respondents over 22
said they are familiar with Word or Works; the figures for the men are similar. Corel's
WordPerfect is the next most popular software, with more women than men expressing
familiarity with it. As expected, only a few have used Mac software, and those
respondents who checked "Other" usually specified a software package that was not
actually a word processing application (e.g., Excel). The labs used by Youngstown State
University's English Department for composition classes all have Microsoft Word for
IBM. (See Table 4.14.)
Table 4.14.
MALES,AGES
18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50
FEMALES, AGES
18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+50+
0.00% 100.00% 52.94% 100.00% 75.00% 50.00%
100.00% 100.00% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
0.00% 100.00% 11.76% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00%
0.00% 0.00% 11.76% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00%0.00% 0.00%
85.71% 80.00%
33.33% 40.00%
19.05% 20.00%
Question 3b: Software with which I am
familiar (check all that apply):
3d. Question 4: Computers in the childhood home
While the majority ofstudents 22 and under did have computers in their homes and used
them "at least occasionally," men were much more likely to have had computers (in the
18-22 age group, 86% versus 59%; in the 23-30 age group, 60% versus 20%). (See
Table 4.15.) Granted, this discrepancy could be a coincidence; I have only 56 responses.
59
However, I will follow this phenomenon closely as I publish the questionnaire to the Web
and collect more responses. Ifa trend favoring boys does exist, then I want to find out
why and what we as composition teachers can do to help equalize the chances for our
female students. As for responses in the groups age 31 and over, the majority ofthese
students-as might be expected--did not have computers in their homes, probably
because home computers were uncommon until ten or twelve years ago.
Table 4.15.
0.00% 100.00% 11.76% 60.00% 75.00% 100.00%
0.00% 0.00% 58.82% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
100.00% 0.00% 29.41% 20.00% 25.00% 0.00%
MALES,AGES FEMALES,AGES
18-22 23-30 31-40 _4.;..:1c.::-S:.=.0--.-c.::50:'='+'---,r1:..::8..=-2=..2..-='23,,-,-3::.::0'--r-'3:.-:.1-40-=-.--:4..:...1-~SO:.......,
Question 4: I would describe my background In
relation to computers as follows:
I did not have a computer at home when I was growing
p (for whatever reason-they weren't invented yet,
e didn't have the mone , etc. 4.76% 20.00%
I did not have a computer in my home but had access
o one elsewhere 4.76% 20.00%
I had a computer at home when I was growing up but
as not ermitted to use it 4.76% 0.00%
I had a computer at home and used it at least
ccasionall 85.71% 60.00%
3e. Question 5: The computer as part ofthe writing process
Overall, only two respondents said they "prefer to handwrite throughout the writing
process, including final drafts." This result is not surprising, considering the level of
computer and typing skills that respondents claimed to have; more surprising are the ages
ofthe respondents who prefer to write by hand (one is a male 18-22, the other a female
23-30). Ofrespondents 31 and over, none prefers handwriting exclusively. Men 31 and
over said they prefer to use a combination ofhandwriting and word processing, and
women in that age group are divided between using a combination oftools and using the
computer exclusively. (See Table 4.16.) The results clearly show that students in this
sample prefer to use the computer for composition at least part ofthe time. Asking them
_4.;..:1c.::-5:.=.0--.-c.::50:'='+'---,r1:..::8..=-2=..2..-='23,,-,-3::.::0'--r-'3:.-:.1-40-=-.--:4..:...1-~50:.......,
60
to write in longhand is akin to giving them a handicap. I predict that a similar study done
in ten years will show even fewer students wishing to write in longhand.
Table 4.16.
0.00% 0.00% 52.94% 40.00% 75.00% 50.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
100.00% 100.00% 29.41% 40.00% 25.00% 50.00%
4.76% 20.00%
4.76% 0.00%
52.38% 20.00%
38.10% 60.00%
Question 5: I would describe my use of computers
for writing as follows: MALES, AGES FEMALES, AGES
18-22 23·30 31-40 _4..:..:1,-,·5:.=.0-,-...::5:.=.0+.:.--,.--=-=18:....:.2=2,..=2:=..3-=:30:....,=..:31c..:;-40:.=.,...::4c:...1.=:50::....,
I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process,
includin final drafts
3f. Question 6: Level ofcomfort with computers
Only two respondents claimed to be "very uncomfortable with computers," and again, the
surprise is in their age groups-one is a male in the 23-30 age group, and the other is a
female in the 18-22 age group. Perhaps because oftheir maturity and because ofthe high
level ofmotivation needed to be a "non-traditional" student, the respondents in the
groups age 31 and up unanimously agreed that computers are a positive addition to their
lives and must be part ofeach student's educational future. (See Table 4.17.)
Another surprising result is that five males under 30 and four females under 23
think we rely too heavily on computer technology. Why are the younger students so
much more uncomfortable with computers than their older counterparts? Older students
may be more willing to embrace technology; they have been around long enough to
remember how difficult it was to write a paper or perform complicated mathematical
functions without the help oftechnology. Younger students do not have the experience
necessary to compare their world (with technology) with the previous (pre-technology)
world. Most ofthem are too young to remember 2400-baud modems and tape drives, let
61
alone carbon paper and "white-out." They cannot imagine a world without 250-megabyte
portable storage and high-speed Internet access. Older students can imagine it-and for
the most part, responses seem to indicate, they would like to leave it behind.
Table 4.17.
Question 6: I would describe my comfort level with
computer technology as follows: MALES, AGES
18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50
FEMALES, AGES
50+ 18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
I am very uncomfortable with computers and would
refer not to have to use them 0.00% 20.00%
I am uncomfortable with computers but feel I must
learn to kee u with technolo 14.29% 20.00%
I am comfortable with computers and am eager to
learn more and to ensure their place in my educational
uture 66.67% 20.00%
14.29% 40.00%
0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
100.00% 100.00% 64.71% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
0.00% 0.00% 23.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
3g. Question 7: Familiarity with the Internet and World Wide Web
Not long ago-six years, maybe-the Internet (a system oflinks between computer
networks all over the world) and World Wide Web (the Internet's graphical interface)
were hot topics, the subjects ofcover stories on seemingly every major magazine and on
every television talk show and news program. People who had never used the Internet-
and many people had not, at that point-were afraid ofit. The growing number ofpeople
who had used the Internet by then had stories to tell: hours and hours in chat rooms,
mailboxes stuffed with messages from lively Usenet discussion groups, memberships to
"bulletin boards" in every major city and most ofthe smaller ones. The media quickly
jumped on any sordid tale-for instance, a woman falls in love online, only to find out
when she meets her "dream man" that he is nothing like his online persona; in fact, he's
actually a kidnapper and rapist. The Internet was newer then, and it was frightening.
Now that most students have used the Internet-in fact, most oftheir parents
have, too--the fear is turning to curiosity and fascination. Users see that most ofthe
62
people they meet online are just as nonnal as they are, and that they can generally avoid
people who are likely to misrepresent themselves by avoiding certain situations (chat
rooms being the best example). The Internet has grown from its humble beginnings as a
link among universities; now, anyone can publish practically anything, so users have to
look harder to find good infonnation.
The responses in my sample reflect widespread interest in the Internet and World
Wide Web, as well as concern that good, reliable infonnation is sometimes hard to find.
All ofthe respondents said they either have experience using the Internet or want to gain
experience. Not surprisingly, well over halfthe students 18-22 said they use the Internet
"extensively" for business, recreation, and school purposes, and another 40% or so have
"moderate" experience with the Internet. The numbers for the 23-30 age group are
similar: 60% ofwomen and 40% ofmen use the Internet "extensively," with another 40%
ofboth genders using it "moderately." All ofthe women over 30 have at least "moderate"
experience. (See Table 4.18.) These results help explain the responses to Question 8.
Table 4.18.
Question 7: I would describe my familiarity with the
InternetIWorld Wide Web as follows: MALES, AGES
18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50
FEMALES, AGES
50+ 18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
I have little or no ex erience and wish to learn more 4.76% 20.00%
I have moderate experience using the Internet for
mainl ersonal/recreational uses 23.81% 20.00%
I have moderate experience using the Internet for
mainl scholastic uses 14.29% 20.00%
I use the Internet extensively for business, recreation,
nd school ur oses 57.14% 40.00%
I have little or no experience with the Internet and do
not wish to learn 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 20.00% 50.00% 50.00%
0.00% 100.00% 23.53% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 58.82% 60.00% 50.00% 50.00%
63
3h. Question 8: Level ofsatisfaction with the Internet as a tool and with quality of
information on the Internet
Every respondent acknowledged at least some satisfaction with the Internet as a research
tool. The majority ofboth males and females find the Internet "somewhat helpful" in
their research; males 18-22 are more than twice as likely to rate the Internet as
"somewhat helpful" as they are to say they do the "majority" oftheir research online and
"rarely or never" cannot find what they seek. Females in the same age group were three
times as likely to rate the Internet as a "somewhat helpful" research tool as they were to
say it is very helpful. Results are similar in the other age groups (except in the groups that
have fewer than four respondents). (See Table 4.19.)
Only one respondent claimed that information on the Internet is "basically
worthless." Everyone else finds "useful and reliable" information at least some ofthe
time, and approximately halfofmen 30 and under said they are "always able" to find
reliable information. Women in the 18-22 age group are more conservative: All those
who answered the question (94%) said the quality ofinformation on the Internet is
"spotty." Eighty percent offemales 23-30 agree; however, women 31-40 think the
information they find is reliable and ofhigh quality. Women in the 41-50 age group are
divided evenly between the two opinions (however, only 2 respondents fall in this age
group). (See Table 4.20.)
Table 4.19.
Question 8a: I would describe my level of
satisfaction with using the Internet for scholastic
purposes as follows: MALES,AGES
18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50
FEMALES, AGES
50+ 18·22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
I find the Internet to be somewhat hel ful in research 66.67% 60.00%
I do the majority of my research online and rarely or
never cannot find what I need 28.57% 40.00%
I do not find the Internet to be a useful tool in
cholastic research 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 76.47% 80.00% 50.00% 100.00%
100.00% 100.00% 23.53% 20.00% 50.00% 0.00%
64
Table 4.20.
Question 8b: I would describe the quality of
information I have found on the Internet as follows: MALES, AGES
18·22 23-30 31-40 41-50 50+
FEMALES, AGES
18-22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
42.86% 60.00%
Information I find on the Internet is basicall worthless 4.76% 0.00%
Spotty: sometimes useful and reliable, sometimes not,
e endin on source 52.38% 40.00%
am always able to find reliable, high-quality
'nformation on the Internet
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
100.00% 0.00% 94.12% 80.00% 0.00% 50.00%
0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 20.00% 75.00% 50.00%
4. Implications/or Today's Classrooms and Tomorrow's Research
A composition instructor reading this research may be compelled to ensure that female
students have equal opportunities to learn and equal access to technology. Gender studies
show that females use different parts oftheir brain than males use for creative tasks and
that females are socialized differently from males in their educational choices. Note that
in my sample, ofthe nine students over 30, seven are female. Perhaps this is because
women are still more likely to put their education and career on hold in favor offamily
needs; thus, they are also more likely to be starting their education later in life. Until
every incoming freshman has adequate computer skills to thrive in a computer-aided
composition class, we teachers must be willing to offer what help we can to students
needing remedial computer instruction (and ifwe can't give the students what they need,
we should at least know where they can get help). The questionnaire clearly shows that
the majority of students polled do use and are comfortable with computers and word
processors; however, knowledge ofthis technology is by no means universal, and while
we cannot hold back an entire class to help one or two technologically challenged
students, we cannot leave those one or two stranded alongside the Information
Superhighway, either.
Helping our students gain experience with word processors and other technology
will help them succeed in our classrooms; it may also help them express their creativity
more fluently. Even ifusing a word processor does not necessarily cause a writer to
produce material that is more creative, it certainly will help that writer to be more
fluent-that is, to write more. With proper training, it may also influence the writer's
development and organizational skills. Writers who are comfortable with the computer,
66
who know their way around the software and can use it to make outlines, draw pictures
and graphics, create tables ofdata, and more, can probably produce work that is more
logical and better organized than ifthey work on a typewriter or by hand. Past studies
focusing on word processors have stressed the "learning factor": Ifwriters were not
already familiar with the software, they tended to produce work that was shorter and less
cohesive than work done by hand. Clearly, the "learning factor" is becoming less ofa
problem today, as the questionnaire responses show. I expect that in ten years, we will
rarely see a student who is not skilled in word processor use.
As I said before, I plan to continue this research for several years. By putting the
questionnaire in an online format, I can ensure that respondents answer each question (I
can set up forms with fields that will prevent the user from advancing to the next question
without first choosing an answer to the previous one). I can set up the forms to compile
data automatically in a database, which can then be accessed by anyone curious about
students' knowledge ofcomputer technology. And ifwe are to be effective composition
teachers, we should be curious.
In addition to being a teacher, though, I am also a creative writer. And as a
creative writer, I want to know how the computer affects my creative process. Moreover,
as an aspiring teacher ofcreative writing, I want to know how the computer will be a part
ofmy students' lives and how it will affect their creative output. This small study of68
freshman writers is just a beginning; I hope more researchers will try to find out how the
computer affects our writing. Ifa word processor can help us develop our ideas better, if
it can help us organize our thoughts, ifit can just help us get more words down in less
time-then it is certainly affecting our creative process. Computer word processing may
67
not turn Jane Doe into Jane Austen, but ifit is destined to become part ofour lives
anyway, then we should use this technology to its full potential-just as we try to learn
and use our own skills and talents to their full potential.
As discussed in Section 1, computers are more than just efficient writing tools.
Computers are fun. As they become a permanent part ofour lives, and as we become
more familiar with their capabilities, we learn how to do more than just type papers and
correct spelling. We learn how to add visual elements to our text; we learn how to add
music, movies, and interactive elements that draw our readers into the text. Playing with
computers not only engages us in our task but also helps us to engage our readers. Add
the Internet and World Wide Web to the creative process, and we gain the ability to share
our work with the whole world.
Ofcourse, the fun ofcomputers can be as much a detriment to the creative
process as it can be a catalyst. Ifwe allow ourselves to become too focused on aspects
other than the text-ifwe shift the balance away from quality work toward decoration
and fun-we perhaps trade good work for color and music. And ifwe don't take the time
to learn where to find reliable information on the Internet, opting instead for the quick
answers offered by search engines, then we may trade good research for worthless
garbage. Computer technology can benefit writers or it can harm us, depending on our
willingness to learn to use it properly.
The best creative writers today are creative no matter what tools they use; of
course, many ofthem choose the word processor. For ease ofediting, for electronic
submissions, for Spell-Check, for myriad reasons, writers today choose word processors
over typewriters or pen and paper. Students choose word processors for many ofthe same
68
reasons. Why not help them get the most out oftheir writing experience by giving them
the training they need and encouraging them to have fun? Their writing will likely
improve as a result.
Appendix 1: "Technology in the Classroom Questionnaire" 69
TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM
QUESTIONNAIRE
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
...J
Please read the following questions carefully and answer them honestly. Do not include your name on this survey.
Myage: _ My gender: Male 0 Female 0
1. I would describe my experience level in computer use as
follows (choose only one answer):
o I am anovice computer user
o I have limited computer experience
o I have taken at least one class in which computers were
used
o I have taken several classes in which computers were used,
and/or I have extensive computer experience from using a
home computer
o I am an expert computer user
• 3a. Iwould describe my familiarity with word processing
· software as follows (choose only one answer):
•0 I am not at all familiar with word processing software
o I have limited experience with w.p. software
o I have taken aclass in aw.p. application or have equivalent
experience/ knowledge
o I have taken several classes in multiple w.p. applications or
have equivalent experience/ knowledge
· 0 I am an expert w.p. user
· 3b. Software with which I am familiar (check all that apply):
o WordPerfect
o Microsoft Word or Works
o Macintosh applications
o Other (please specify) _
5. I would describe my use of computers for writing as follows
(choose only one answer):
o I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process, including
final drafts
o I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process, but will
reluctantly type any final drafts or have them typed for me
o I use acombination of handwriting and typing in my writing
process
o I do very little or no handwriting and prefer to perform the
entire writing process on computer
2. Iwould describe my keyboarding (typing) skills as follows
(choose only one answer):
o I cannot type at all
o I have limited typing skills
o I have taken atyping class or have otherwise developed
good typing skills
o I have taken extensive keyboarding classes, and/or I have
typed amajority of my schoolwork
o Iwork or have worked at ajob requiring typing speeds of
12,000 kph or 60 wpm or more, or have equivalent
typing/keyboarding skill
4. Iwould describe my background in relation to computers as
follows (choose only one answer):
o I did not have acomputer at home when I was growing up
(for whatever reason-they weren't invented yet, we didn't
have the money, etc.)
o I did not have acomputer in my home but had access to one
elsewhere
o I had acomputer at home when Iwas growing up but was
not permitted to use it
o I had acomputer at home and used it at least occasionally
6. Iwould describe my comfort level with computer technology
as follows (choose only one answer):
o I am very uncomfortable with computers and would prefer
not to have to use them
o I am uncomfortable with computers but feel I must learn to
keep up with technology
o I am comfortable with computers and am eager to learn more
and to ensure their place in my educational future
o I am comfortable with computers but do not think we should
rely so heavily upon them
Appendix 1: "Technology in the Classroom Questionnaire"
70
'i,'iwCluld'describemyfamiliariiywith the Internet!WClrld Wide '8a,'I w()ulddescritJe' my level' ()fsalisfaCli()nwithusingthe"
Web as follows (choose only one answer): Internet for scholastic purposes as follows (choose only one
answer):
o I have little or no experience with the Internet and do not
o I do not find the Internet to be a useful tool in scholasticwish to learn
o I have little or no experience and wish to learn more research
o I have moderate experience using the Internet for mainly o Ifind the Internet to be somewhat helpful in research
personal/recreational uses o I do the majority of my research online and rarely or never
o I have moderate experience using the Internet for mainly cannot find what I need
scholastic uses
o I use the Internet extensively for business, recreation, and 8b, I would describe the quality of information I have found on
school purposes the Internet as follows (choose only one answer):
o Information Ifind on the Internet is basically worthless
o Spotty: sometimes useful and reliable, sometimes not,
depending on source
o I am always able to find reliable, high-quality information on
the Internet
Please add any comments on the above questions in this space. Number your comments to correspond with the question to which
they refer. Thank you!
Appendix 2: Comparison ofQuestionnaire Responses By Gender
71
"TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM" RESPONSES LISTED BY
GENDER
Question 1: I would describe my experience level in
computer use as follows:
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I am a novice comouter user 5 17.86% 0 0.00%
I have limited comouter exoerience 4 14.29% 9 32.14%
I have taken at least one class in which computers were
used 4 14.29% 3 10.71%
I have taken several classes in which computers were used,
and/or I have extensive computer experience from using a
home computer 11 39.29% 15 53.57%
I am an expert computer user 3 10.71% 1 3.57%
Respondents
Question 2: I would describe my keyboarding (typing)
skills as follows:
27
ALL MALES
28
ALL FEMALES
I cannot lvoe at all 0 0.00% 1 3.57%
I have limited typing skills 10 35.71% 6 21.43%
I have taken a typing class or have otherwise developed
aood lvpina skills 8 28.57% 11 39.29%
I have taken extensive keyboarding classes, and/or I have
typed a majority of my schoolwork 9 32.14% 6 21.43%
I work or have worked at a job requiring typing speeds of
12,000 kph or 60 wpm or more, or have equivalent
lvoina/kevboardina skill 1 3.57% 4 14.29%
Respondents
Question 3a: I would describe my familiarity with word
processing software as follows:
28
ALL MALES
28
ALL FEMALES
I am not at all familiar with word processina software 1 3.57% 1 3.57%
I have limited exoerience with wo software 9 32.14% 8 28.57%
I have taken a class in a wp application or have equivalent
experience/knowledae 5 17.86% 13 46.43%
I have taken several classes in multiple wp applications or
have equivalent exoerience/knowledae 9 32.14% 6 21.43%
I am an expert wp user 4 14.29% 0 0.00%
Respondents
Question 3b: Software with which I am familiar (check
all that apply):
28
ALL MALES
28
ALL FEMALES
Corel WordPerfect 10 35.71% 18 64.29%
Microsoft Word or Works 24 85.71% 26 92.86%
Macintosh applications 6 21.43% 3 10.71%
Other (please specify) 0 0.00% 3 10.71%
Responses 40 50
Note: Because respondents could choose more than one response to this question, total responses are greater
than totals for the other questions.
Appendix 2: Comparison ofQuestionnaire Responses By Gender
Question 4: I would describe my background in relation to
computers as follows:
72
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I did not have a computer at home when I was growing up (for
whatever reason--they weren't invented yet, we didn't have the
money, etc.) 3 10.71% 10 35.71%
I did not have a computer in my home but had access to one
elsewhere 3 10.71% 7 25.00%
I had a computer at home when I was growing up but was not
oermitted to use it 1 3.57% 0 0.00%
I had a comouter at home and used it at least occasionallv 21 75.00% 11 39.29%
Respondents
Question 5: I would describe my use of computers for
writing as follows:
28
ALL MALES
28
ALL FEMALES
I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process, including
final drafts 1 3.57% 1 3.57%
I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process, but will
reluctantly type any final drafts or have them typed for me 2 7.14% 3 10.71%
I use a combination of handwriting and typing in my writing
process 13 46.43% 9 32.14%
I do very little or no handwriting and prefer to perform the entire
writing process on comouter 12 42.86% 15 53.57%
Respondents
Question 6: I would describe my comfort level with
computer technology as follows:
28
ALL MALES
28
ALL FEMALES
I am very uncomfortable with computers and would prefer not to
have to use them 1 3.57% 1 3.57%
I am uncomfortable with computers but feel I must learn to keep
uo with technoloQY 4 14.29% 1 3.57%
I am comfortable with computers and am eager to learn more
and to ensure their place in my educational future 17 60.71% 22 78.57%
I am comfortable with computers but do not think we should rely
so heavily upon them 5 17.86% 4 14.29%
Respondents
Question 1: I would describe my familiarity with the
InternetJWorld Wide Web as follows:
27
ALL MALES
28
ALL FEMALES
I have little or no experience with the Internet and do not wish to
learn 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
I have little or no exoerience and wish to learn more 3 10.71% 0 0.00%
I have moderate experience using the Internet for mainly
Ipersonal/recreational uses 6 21.43% 7 25.00%
I have moderate experience using the Internet for mainly
scholastic uses 5 17.86% 5 17.86%
I use the Internet extensively for business, recreation, and
school purposes 14 50.00% 16 57.14%
Respondents 28 28
mv
Appendix 2: Comparison ofQuestionnaire Responses By Gender
Question 8a: I would describe my level of satisfaction with
using the Internet for scholastic purposes as follows:
73
ALL MALES ALL FEMALES
I do not find the Internet to be a useful tool in scholastic
research 1 3.57% 0
0.00%
I find the Internet to be somewhat heleful in research 17 60.71% 21
75.00%
I do the majority of my research online and rarely or never
cannot find what I need 9 32.14% 7
25.00%
Respondents
Question 8b: I would describe the quality of information I
have found on the Internet as follows:
27
ALL MALES
28
ALL FEMALES
Information I find on the Internet is basicallv worthless 1 3.57% 0 0.00%
Spotty: sometimes useful and reliable, sometimes not,
deeendina on source 14 50.00% 21 75.00%
I am always able to find reliable, high-quality information on the
Internet 13 46.43% 5 17.86%
Respondents 28 26
Note: Where number of respondents does not add up to 28 in either gender, one or more
respondents failed to answer a question. Where percentages do not add up to 100%, the same
is true; in cases in which the discrepancy is less than a percentage point, however, the
discrepancy is due to decimal rounding.
Appendix 3: Comparison o/Questionnaire Responses ByAge Group 74
"TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM" RESPONSES LISTED BY AGE GROUP
Question 1: I would describe my
experience level In computer use as
follows: MALES FEMALES
18-22 23-30 41·50 50+ 18-22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
I am a novice com uter user 9.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
I have limited com uter ex erience 19.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.41% 40.00% 50.00% 0.00%
I have taken at least one class in which
com uters were used 9.52% 20.00% 0.00% 100.00% 11.76% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%
I have taken several classes in which
computers were used, and/or I have eX1ensive
computer experience from using a home
com uter 47.62% 0.00% 0.00% 52.94% 60.00% 25.00% 100.00%
14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Question 2: I would describe my
keyboarding (typing) skills as follows: MALES FEMALES
18·22 23-30 31-40 41·50 50+ 18-22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
I cannot 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%
I have limited skills 28.57% 40.00% 100.00% 100.00% 23.53% 20.00% 25.00% 0.00%
I have laken a typing class or have otherwise
develo d ood in skills 33.33% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.29% 60.00% 0.00% 100.00%
I have taken eX1ensive keyboarding classes,
and/or I have typed a majority of my
schoolwork 33.33% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.41% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%
4.76% 0.00% 11.76% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00%
Question 3a: I would describe my
familiarity with word processing software
as follows: MALES FEMALES
18·22 23-30 31-40 41-50 50+ 18·22 23·30 31-40 41-50
I am not at all familiar with word processing
software 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%
23.81% 100.00% 23.53% 40.00% 50.00% 0.00%
23.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 58.82% 0.00% 25.00% 100.00%
33.33% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 40.00% 25.00% 0.00%
19.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Question 3b: Software with which I am
familiar (check all that apply): MALES FEMALES
18-22 23·30 41·50 50+ 18·22 23-30 31-40 41-50
Corel WordPerfect 33.33% 100.00% 52.94% 100.00% 75.00% 50.00%
Microsoft Word or Works 85.71% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00%
19.05% 20.00% 0.00% 100.00% 11.76% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.76% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00%
Number of respondents In each category: 21 5 0 17 5 4 2 0
Appendix 3: Comparison ofQuestionnaire Responses By Age Group 75
. Question 4: I would describe my background In
relation to computers as follows:
18·22 23-30
I did not have a computer at home when I was growing
up (for whatever reason--they weren't invented yet, we
didn't have the mone ,etc. 4.76% 20.00%
I did not have a computer in my home but had access
to one elsewhere 4.76% 20.00%
I had a computer at home when I was growing up but
was not ermitted to use it 4.76% 0.00%
I had a computer at home and used it at least
occasionall 85.71% 60.00%
MALES FEMALES
50+ 18·22 23·30 31-40 41-50 50+
0.00% 100.00% 11.76% 60.00% 75.00% 100.00%
100.00% 0.00% 29.41% 20.00% 25.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 58.82% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%0.00%0.00% 20.00%0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 52.94% 40.00% 75.00%
0.00%
100.00% 100.00% 29.41% 40.00% 25.00%
MALES FEMALES
18-22 23·30 31-40 _4..;..1'-.5=-:0:......,-----=:.50::...+--,r-
1
.:..:;8;..;.2=2:--,-.::;23::...-=.;30:.....,....:3;..;1_-40=-,....:4..;..1-..=50.::....,;;;50m,+
illl!~4.76% 0.00%
4.76% 20.00%
38.10% 60.00%
52.38% 20.00%
Question 5: I would describe my use of computers
for writing as follows:
I use a combination of handwriting and typing in my
writin rocess
I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process,
includin final drafts
I prefer to handwrite throughout the writing process,
but will reluctantly type any final drafts or have them
ed forme
Sl!
100.00% 100.00% 64.71% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%mf:~;
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
FEMALES
18-22 23·30 31-40 41·50 50+
5.88%
5.88%
50+
0.00%
0.00% 23.53% 0.00%
0.00%
41·50
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
MALES
18·22 23-30
14.29% 40.00%
Question 6: I would describe my comfort level with
computer technology as follows:
I am very uncomfortable with computers and would
refer not to have to use them 0.00% 20.00%
I am uncomfortable with computers but feel I must
learn to kee u with technolo 14.29% 20.00%
I am comfortable with computers and am eager to
learn more and to ensure their place in my educational
future 66.67% 20.00%
Question 7: I would describe my familiarity with
the InternetIWorld Wide Web as follows: MALES FEMALES
18·22 23·30 41-50 50+ 18·22 23-30 31-40 41-50 50+
I have little or no experience with the Internet and do
not wish to learn 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
I have little or no ex erience and wish to learn more 4.76% 20.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
I have moderate experience using the Internet for
mainl ersonal/recreational uses 23.81% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 20.00% 50.00%
I have moderate experience using the Internet for
mainl scholastic uses 14.29% 20.00% 0.00% 100.00% 23.53% 20.00% 0.00%
I use the Internet extensively for business, recreation,
and school ur oses 57.14% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 58.82% 60.00% 50.00% 50.00%
Number of respondents in each category: 21 17 5 4
illl!~
mf:~;
Appendix 3: Comparison ofQuestionnaire Responses By Age Group 76
I do not find the Internet to be a useful tool in scholastic
research 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
100.00% 100.00% 23.53% 20.00% 50.00% 0.00%
MALES FEMALES
18-22 23·30 31_40----::.41.:.....=:5o:.....,---=5o=o:.:.+--.,1'""8:...:.2==2'-r-"'23~.3"'0~~3-'-1-40~,....:4~1~-5==0:...,;~
28.57% 40.00%
66.67% 60.00%
I do the majority of my research online and rarely or
never cannot find what I need
I find the Internet to be somewhat hel ful in research
Question 8a: I would describe my level of
satisfaction with using the Internet for scholastic
purposes as follows:
Information I find on the Internet is basicall worthless 4.76% 0.00%
Spotty: sometimes useful and reliable, sometimes not,
de endin on source 52.38% 40.00%
I am always able to find reliable. high-quality
information on the Inlernet 42.86% 60.00%
18·22 23·30
2 04517
FEMALES
18·22 23·30 31_40 41-5050+
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
41-50
0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 20.00% 75.00% 50.00%
100.00% 0.00% 94.12% 80.00% 0.00% 50.00%
MALES
521Number of respondents in each category:
Question 8b: I would describe the quality of
information I have found on the Internet as follows:
Note: Where percentages do not add up to 100%, one or more subjects did not respond to the question.
----::.41.:.....=:5o:.....,---=5o=o:.:.+--.,1'""8:...:.2==2'-r-"'23~.3"'0~~3-'-1-40~,....:4~1~-5==0:...,;~
Appendix 4: Statement ofInformed Consent 77
STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT
Please read carefully and sign the appropriate section ofthisform (do not sign both!).
A copy will be provided to you upon request. Ifyou have any questions,feelfree to ask.
Thank you.
A. Consent to Participate in Research
By signing below, I acknowledge
I) that I have been informed of my participation in a research project involving
approximately 75-100 students, who will each supply a writing sample that will be used
to study the effects ofcomputer use on composition;
2) that I consent to participate in such research, realizing that there is in this research
virtually no risk or minimal risk to me;
3) that any identifying information I give to the researcher(s) will not be used in conjunction
with the products ofmy participation in this research, and that my confidentiality will be
assured;
4) that the results ofthis research may be made available to me at my request, by contacting
my English 1550 instructor;
5) that my participation in this research is entirely voluntary;
6) that the results of this research may be beneficial in the future design ofcomputer-based
composition courses;
7) that I am age 18 or over;
8) and that nothing in the above statement ofconsent is intended to preempt any applicable
Federal, State, or local laws.
Participant's Signature Date
Direct Any Questions to Principal Investigator: Holly M. Wells, Graduate Student, English
298 DeBartolo Hall, Youngstown State University (330) 742-4627
or to Advisor: Bege K. Bowers, Ph.D., Professor ofEnglish, 224 DeBartolo Hall (330) 742-1655
B. Refusal to Participate in Research
By signing below, I acknowledge my decision not to participate in the research as outlined
above. I understand that my refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to
which I would otherwise be entitled.
Participant's Signature
Witness's Signature (jor Consent or Refusal)
Date
Date
Appendix 5: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Handwriting Condition 78
NARRATIVE ESSAY
Directions: Read through the topic printed below and write a narrative (story) in
response. You will have 40 minutes to write, so use your allotted time wisely. In the area
provided below, please write any brainstorming, outlining, etc., that you do before
beginning to write your story. Then, in the section labeled "Narrative, " write your story.
Please write as legibly as possible. Ifyou do any editing, DO NOT OBLITERATE (by
erasing or scratching out) the text being changed; simply put a line threugh it, so that it
remains legible.
When the allotted time has expired, the instructor will notify you to finish the sentence
you are working on. Please do so promptly. When you have finished, give your essay to
the instructor. You will then be asked to sign a short consent form acknowledging that
you are consenting to take part in this study.
Please have fun with this assignment!
Please enter your name and age:
Age:Name:
___________________---"=;0.;;.
Topic
Write a narrative about the following: One morning, you (or your main character)
awaken to discover that humankind has developed-or been given-the ability to
become invisible at will.
You may write your narrative in any format or style you wish to use.
Appendix 5: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Handwriting Condition 79
Brainstorming Area
Use this area to list ideas, brainstonn, outline, or use any other technique you find
helpful for organization of ideas. You are not required to brainstonn; this space is
provided for your convenience should you wish to do so.
Appendix 5: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Handwriting Condition 80
Narrative
Use this area to write your story. Ifyou need more paper, please ask your instructor.
Appendix 5: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Handwriting Condition 81
Appendix 5: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Handwriting Condition 82
Appendix 5: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Handwriting Condition 83
Once again, thank you for participating in this study.
Appendix 6: Narrative Essay Prompt, As Given to Subjects in Computer Condition 84
NARRATIVE ESSAY
Directions: Read through the topic printed below and write a narrative (story) in
response. You will have 40 minutes to write, so use your allotted time wisely. (Do not
worry ifyou do not consider yourselfa fast typist.) In the area provided below, please
type and save any brainstorming, outlining, etc., that you do before beginning to write
your story. Then, in the section labeled "Narrative, " write your story.
When the allotted time has expired, the instructor will notify you to finish the sentence
you are working on and click "Save. " Be sure that you have saved the document to the
3Yz /I floppy drive ("A'') and not to the hard drive ("e" or "D ''). When instructed to do
so, please print 011t tifO (2) copies ofyour narrative and give them to your instructor. You
will then be asked to sign a short consentform acknowledging that you are consenting to
take part in this study.
Please have fun with this assignment!
Please click on the grey box to enter your name and age:
Name: Age:
Topic
Write a narrative about the following: One morning, you (or your main character) awaken
to discover that humankind has developed-or been given-the ability to become invisible
at will.
In the Brainstorming area, you may wish to think out the implications of this idea before
deciding what to write about. You may write your narrative in any format or style you wish
to use.
Brainstorming Area
Click on the grey box below to enter text. Use this area to list ideas, brainstorm, outline, or
use any other technique you find helpful for organization of ideas. Do not delete your
brainstorming!
Narrative
Use this area to write your story. Click on the grey box below to enter text. Text will
overflow onto additional pages as needed.
Once again, thank you for participating in this study. Please remember to SAVE your
document!
85
Works Cited
Amabile, Teresa M. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996.
-. The Social Psychology ofCreativity. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983.
Boden, Margaret A. Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man. 2
nd
ed. New York: Basic,
1987.
Campbell, Penny Renae. Effects ofTime Spent on Computer-assisted Instruction on
Attitudes ofSixth Grade Students Toward Computers. Diss. U ofNorth Texas,
1987.
Christensen, Edith Elizabeth. The Effects ofWord Processing on the Creative Writing of
High-achieving and Low-achieving Gifted Elementary Students. Diss. U of
Washington, 1993.
Depweg, Dale Irvin. Writing Is a Verb: A Descriptive Study ofan Alternative Writing
Environment. Diss. U ofOregon, 1991.
Diederich, Paul B. Measuring Growth in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers ofEnglish, 1974.
Educational Testing Service. "What Is Holistic Scoring?"
Http://www.ets.org/textonly/holistic.html. Educational Testing Service (Jul. 22,
2001), n.p. (Online.)
Gravetter, Frederick J., and Larry B. Wallnau. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences: A
First Course for Students ofPsychology and Education. S1. Paul, MN: West,
1985.
Haas, Christina. "On the Relationship Between Old and New Technologies." Computers
86
and Composition 16 (1999): 209-28.
-, and John R. Hayes. "Pen and Paper vs. the Machine: Writers Composing in Hard
Copy and Computer Conditions." CDC Technical Report No. 16. ERIC document
ED 265 563, Feb. 1986.
Hawisher, Gail E., and Cynthia L. Selfe. "Collaborative Computer Encounters: Teaching
Ourselves, Teaching Our Students." Teaching College English and English
Education: Reflective Stories, ed. H. Thomas McCracken and Richard Larson,
with Judith Entes. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1998.
John-Steiner, Vera. Notebooks ofthe Mind: Explorations ofThinking. New York: Harper,
1985.
Kellogg, Ronald T., and Suzanne Mueller. "Performance Amplification and Process
Restructuring in Computer-Based Writing." Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 39
(1993): 33-49.
Koestler, Arthur. The Act ofCreation. New York: Dell, 1967.
Nichols, Lois Mayer. "Pencil and Paper Versus Word Processing: A Comparative Study
ofCreative Writing in the Elementary School." J. Research on Computing in
Education 29:2 (1996): 159-66.
Owen, Trevor. "Poems That Change the World: Canada's Wired Writers." English
Journal 84:6 (1995): 48-52.
Rouzie, Albert. "The Composition ofDramatic Experience: The Play Element in Student
Electronic Projects." Computers and Composition 17 (2000): 139-60.
Shanahan, Sheryl Marie. Computer-assisted Instruction and the Creative Thinking and
Writing Abilities ofFourth-grade Students. Diss. Oklahoma State U, 1986.
87
Sharples, Mike. How We Write. London: Routledge, 1999.
Vernon, Alex. "Computerized Grammar Checkers 2000: Capabilities, Limitations, and
Pedagogical Possibilities." Computers and Composition 17 (2000): 329--49.
Ward, Thomas B., et al. Creative Thought: An Investigation ofConceptual Structures and
Processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1997.
Wiburg, Karin Miller. The Effect ofDifferent Computer-based Learning Environments on
Fourth Grade Students' Cognitive Abilities. Diss. United States International U,
1987.
88
Works Consulted
Bennahum, David. "Fly Me to the MOO: Adventures in Textual Reality." Lingua Franca
4:4 (1994): 1-27. (Online.)
Boden, Margaret A. Artificial Intelligence in Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1989.
-. Dimensions ofCreativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1994.
Day, Michael. "Teachers at the Crossroads: Evaluating Teaching in Electronic
Environments." Computers and Composition 17 (2000): 31-40.
Duffelmeyer, Barbara Blakely. "Critical Computer Literacy: Computers in First-Year
Composition as Topic and Environment." Computers and Composition 17 (2000):
289-307.
Easterling, Lynn Oborn. The Rhetorician ofHypertext: Writing Technology for
Composition Instruction. Diss. Southern Illinois U at Carbondale, 1995.
Finke, Ronald A., et al. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, andApplications.
Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1992.
Harrington, Susanmarie, Mark D. Shermis, and Angela L. Rollins. "The Influence of
Word Processing on English Placement Test Results." Computers and
Composition 17 (2000): 197-210.
Hennessey, Beth A., and Teresa M. Amabile. Creativity and Learning. Washington, DC:
National Education Association, 1987.
Hogan, Christine. "Creative and Reflective Journal Processes." The Learning
Organization 2:2 (1995): 4-17.
Hume, Edward Ross. An Investigation ofthe Effects ofIntensive Word Processing Skills
Practice on Writing Quality and Revision Patterns ofGrade 6 Students. Thesis. U
89
ofManitoba, 1996.
Palmquist, Mike, and Donald E. Zimmennan. Writing with a Computer. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1999.
Salkind, Neil J. Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2000.
Smith, Steven M., et al. The Creative Cognition Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1995.
Sutherland, Jennifer A., and Keith J. Topping. "Collaborative Creative Writing in Eight 
year-olds: Comparing Cross-ability Fixed Role and Same-ability Reciprocal Role
Pairing." J Research in Reading 22:2 (1999): 154-79.
Swift, Jacquie. "Proper Listening, Proper Heeding: A Midwifery ofThought." NSEAD
(1999): 281-92.
Warner, Julian. From Writing to Computers. London: Routledge, 1994.
Wolfe, Joanna L. "Why Do Women Feel Ignored? Gender Differences in Computer 
Mediated Classroom Interactions." Computers and Composition 16 (1999): 153 
66.
March 22, 2001
Youngstown State University / One University Plaza / Youngstown, Ohio 44555-0001
Dean of Graduate Studies
(330) 742·3091
FAX (330) 742-1580
E-Mail: amgrad03@ysub.ysu.edu
Dr. Bege Bowers, Professor
Ms. Holly M. Wells, Graduate Student
Department of English
CAMPUS
RE: HSRC Protocol #35-01
Dear Dr.Bowers and Ms. Wells:
The Human Subjects Research Committee of Youngstown State University has
reviewed your protocol, "The Effects of Computer Word Processor Use on Creative
Process in Freshman Composition," (HSRC #35-01). Based on the information
provided, the above protocol was determined to be exempt from full committee review
under U.S. DHHS Category 1 exemption.
The Committee would like to remind the Principal Investigator to ensure all participants
of the project are over 18.
Any changes in your research activity should be promptly reported to the Human
Subjects Research Committee and may not be initiated without HSRC approval except
where necessary to eliminate hazard to human subjects. Any unanticipated problems
involving risks to subjects should also be promptly reported to the Human Subjects
Research Committee.
The HSRC would like to extend its best wishes to you in the conduct of this study.
eter
Dean, School of Graduate S dies
Research Compliance Officer
P1K/cc
\N\Vw.ysu.edu