תהליכים בכתיבה הנעשית בעזרת התמלילן Writing Processes with Word Processors

1. תהליכים בכתיבה הנעשית בעזרת התמלילןWriting Processes with Word Processors מירב אסף Merav Asaf Kaye Academic College of Education Ben Gurion University אלי קוזמינסקי Ely Kozminsky Ben Gurion University Chais 2011

2. Objectives • Portraying substantial computerized writing processes • Viewing findings with reference to pen-and-paper writing research

3. What research tells us about:The Writing Process Writing – a recursive engagement in three procedures (Hayes and Flower, 1980): Planning – retrieving content, procedures and text design from memory or external sources Translating – physical generation of the text Reviewing – rereading and rewriting to improve language, meaning and appropriateness

4. What research tells us about:Expert Writers Initially plan content and structure and write comprehensive drafts Pause mainly after meaningful units (write first review after) Engage in separate macro and micro reviewing activities (e.g. Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Schoonen et al., 2003)

5. What research tells us about:Computer vs. Pen-and-Paper Writing Less planning Longer time on task More reviewing (especially micro-reviewing) Longer and slightly better products (e.g. Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Goldberg, Russell & Cook, 2003; Graham & Perin, 2007)

6. Our Questions: How do writers, using word processing software, engage in the writing procedures? How are processes linked to the quality of products?

7. Method: Participants: 40 female psychology students Task: Writing either a persuasion or a pro-con essay on a given topic Data Collection: Writing sessions were recorded, observed and were logged using Inputlog Data Analysis: Coding each action into Planning, Translating, Reviewingand their sub-processes. Assessing quality of drafts and essays.

8. Similar to Findings in Pen-and-Paper Studies: Writers recursively engage in the three procedures with more planning at the beginning and more revision towards the end. Results: General Pattern Has Not Changed

9. Results: Engagement in Processes Has Changed Unlike Findings in Pen-and-Paper Studies: Within the macro-process, writers continuously engage in micro-recursive processes of P-T-R Disengagement within meaningful units for editing and planning Novice like processes  no drafts, mainly micro-editing Quality was not related to the processes

10. Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis

11. 40 writers only Homogenous group (age, gender, academic level) Artificial conditions Essay tasks only Inference in data analysis Limitations

12. Is the tool compensative?and if so…. What is a good writer nowadays? Better practices: Blind typing Turning off flagging options Outlining tools Issues for Further Discussion

13. Thank You

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

15. Results: General Description

16. “Planners” (n=20): Heavy planning throughout the process Gradual increase in translating and reviewing Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis

17. “Translators” (n=4): Mainly typing after second phase Significantly shorter writing process Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis

18. “Reviewers” (n=6): Mainly reviewing after second phase Recursive mini-stages (word to sentence level) Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis

19. “Transitioners” (n=10): Constant engagement in all stages Focus changing: planning>translating>reviewing Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis