Since the early 1980's, there has been a pedagogical shift from writing as product to writing as process. This view of writing was further developed in the late 1980's as a series cyclical, as opposed to linear, stages (see Figure 1).
In describing the writing process, Jamieson McKenzie (1991) states that:
"...fragments are collected as beautiful beads which might later be strung in some ordered sequences. The emphasis is upon richness."
According the Lehr (1995), the heart of the writing process is revision. It is this part of the process in which the writer develops and clarifies ideas. Despite research to support the concept of the writing process, it has not been very well received in "paper and pencil" classrooms. Many teachers feel that the tedious and time-consuming task of continually rewriting an assignment by hand negates the benefits of the process (Simic, 1994). The integration of technology into classroom has brought the promise of implementing the writing process as it was envisioned. Instead of using computers for tutorials and drill and practice, teachers are beginning to view the computer as a tool for handling information. In this way, word processing can become the heart of an effective writing curriculum in which the writer is in control (Simic, 1994).
In her paper on revision in writing, Lehr (1995) cited a variety of studies on the impact of technology on the writing process. Though the results of these studies were mixed, there was evidence indicating clear advantages for the use of word processing. A summary of the results is as follows:
A survey done by McKenzie (1991) indicates that even when teachers have access to technology (specifically word processing) they may not use it to its fullest potential. He found that students were often prohibited from using the technology to do prewriting activities and develop drafts. Instead, students, many lacking in keyboarding skills, tediously typed drafts onto the computer and thus the word processor became a "glorified electronic typewriter." McKenzie concluded that giving teachers opportunities to use new technologies does not mean that they will change the way they teach. For example, teachers that focus writing mechanics over content will still tend to emphasize correctness over "coherence, conviction and clarity" despite the powerful editing features in word processors.
In the prewriting phase students can use technology to organize their thoughts. For example, the "Inspiration" software is a tool for creating concept maps. Students can easily type in a list of ideas with each idea appearing as a "balloon" or node. Student may rearrange the nodes on the screen and then define the relationships (linear, branched, hierarchical) by graphically linking the nodes using lines and arrows. The built-in outlining features of word processors such as ClarisWorks and Microsoft Word handle the otherwise tedious tasks of labeling and indenting. Users can rearrange the order of their ideas by simply dragging them to their desired locations in the text. Thus the user can focus on creating on a coherent sequence of ideas instead of on the mechanics of creating an outline.
Standard editing features such as deleting, inserting, cutting, pasting, search and replace empower the writer to make changes ranging from simple corrections to reorganizing blocks of text. The power to manipulate text helps writers experiment and take risks with their words like never before. They are free to try out dozens of variations as they strive to bring out their intended message. Rewriting and revising are no longer dominated by the tedious task of putting words on the page and thus become the cognitive processes they should be (Simic, 1994).
Electronic media provides new opportunities for sharing student work. On a very basic level, multiple copies can be instantly printed for group discussion. Students can also share their work over a computer network. Allowing access to everyone's texts can help create a culture of sharing which can help reinforce the writing process (Puccio, 1993). Furthermore, this style of sharing makes it possible for the writer to make changes and republish immediately.
Once a piece of writing has gone through a process of revision (e.g.. sharing, rewriting and editing) the technology can facilitate the evaluation stage as well. Since legibility is no longer an issue, the teacher can focus on the language mechanics and especially content. Teachers who grade the work electronically are able to add their feedback using tools such as Apple's "Stickies" (electronic post-it notes) and Microsoft Word's annotations. It is important to note that long before accepting work for evaluation, the instructor should stress meaningful criteria. Clean, attractive text does not necessarily imply well-crafted ideas. Quantity still does not take precedence over quality. The key is for the students to let the computer deal with the mechanical aspect of writing so that they can most of their effort into bringing clarity to their ideas.
It is unrealistic to expect word processing to make a significant impact on student writing unless it is combined with training in the writing process (McKenzie, 1991). At the school level, Simic (1994) suggests that the school as well as the teacher needs to make a commitment to its use with the teachers willing to invest the time needed to teach students how to use the software. Corollary to this is the importance of providing opportunities for students to use the word processor for sustained periods of time outside of their English class (McKenzie, 1991). Simic goes on to describe different ways to teach the technology including large group instruction and peer tutoring. Though she states that large group is the ideal, she does indicate that a peer-tutor model can facilitate the sharing process thus provide students with immediate feedback.
While word processing has not yet had a profound affect on the teaching of writing, there is much research to support its value and benefits. Weaving technology into the writing process and tap its full potential is, however, far from simple. To do so will require teachers to change the way they teach. Though there are many barriers to this (e.g. "technophobia", sporadic technical support ) there are reasons to believe that technology integration is a only matter of time. Districts around the country are making a commitment to acquire and support technology. Schools are focusing less on getting computers and more on how to use them. Teachers are sharing lessons and techniques at conferences and over the internet. Teacher education programs such as San Diego State University's Teaching, Technology and Restructuring Partnership (T2ARP) program embrace technology as an essential tool for teachers. Access and techniques continue to improve gradually. Thus the integration of computers in the writing process will be more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Lehr, F. (1995). Revision in the Writing Process. (Report No. ED379664 95 ) ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, Bloomington, IN.(ERIC Digests) [On-Line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed379664.html (1997, Nov. 26)
McKenzie, J. (1991). Measuring Results: What happens to student writing with the word processor? From Now On 1(6) [On-Line]. Available: http://www.fromnowon.org/fnojun91.html (1997, Nov. 27)
Puccio, P. M. (1993). The Computer-Networked Writing Lab: One Instructor's View. (Report No. ED353604 93 ) ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Bloomington, IN. (ERIC Digests) [On-Line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed353604.html (1997, Nov. 26)
Simic, M. (1994). Computer Assisted Writing Instruction (Report No. ED376474 94). ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, Bloomington, IN.(ERIC Digests) [On-Line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed376474.html (1997, Nov. 26)