Writing Processes with Word Processors Merav Asaf Kaye
- Slides: 19
תהליכים בכתיבה הנעשית בעזרת התמלילן Writing Processes with Word Processors Merav Asaf מירב אסף Kaye Academic College of Education Ben Gurion University Ely Kozminsky אלי קוזמינסקי Ben Gurion University Chais 2011
Objectives n Portraying substantial computerized writing processes n Viewing findings with reference to pen-andpaper writing research
What research tells us about: The Writing Process n Writing – a recursive engagement in three procedures (Hayes and Flower, 1980): q q q Planning – retrieving content, procedures and text design from memory or external sources Translating – physical generation of the text Reviewing – rereading and rewriting to improve language, meaning and appropriateness
What research tells us about: Expert Writers n Initially plan content and structure and write comprehensive drafts n Pause mainly after meaningful units (write first review after) n Engage in separate macro and micro reviewing activities (e. g. Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Schoonen et al. , 2003)
What research tells us about: Computer vs. Pen-and-Paper Writing n Less planning n Longer time on task n More reviewing (especially micro-reviewing) n Longer and slightly better products (e. g. Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Goldberg, Russell & Cook, 2003; Graham & Perin, 2007)
Our Questions: n How do writers, using word processing software, engage in the writing procedures? n How are processes linked to the quality of products?
Method: n Participants: 40 female psychology students n Task: Writing either a persuasion or a pro-con essay on a given topic n Data Collection: Writing sessions were recorded, observed and were logged using Inputlog n Data Analysis: Coding each action into Planning, Translating, Reviewing and their sub-processes. Assessing quality of drafts and essays.
Results: General Pattern Has Not Changed n Similar to Findings in Pen-and-Paper Studies: Writers recursively engage in the three procedures with more planning at the beginning and more revision towards the end.
Results: Engagement in Processes Has Changed n Unlike Findings in Pen-and-Paper Studies: q q 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 microediting Quality was not related to the processes
Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis
Limitations n n n 40 writers only Homogenous group (age, gender, academic level) Artificial conditions Essay tasks only Inference in data analysis
Issues for Further Discussion n Is the tool compensative? and if so…. What is a good writer nowadays? Better practices: q q q Blind typing Turning off flagging options Outlining tools
Thank You
Results: General Pattern Has Not Changed n Similar to Findings in Pen-On-Paper Studies:
Results: General Description
Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis “Planners” (n=20): q Heavy planning throughout the process q Gradual increase in translating and reviewing
Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis “Translators” (n=4): q Mainly typing after second phase q Significantly shorter writing process
Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis “Reviewers” (n=6): q Mainly reviewing after second phase q Recursive mini-stages (word to sentence level)
Results: Writing Patterns – Cluster Analysis “Transitioners” (n=10): q Constant engagement in all stages q Focus changing: planning>translating>reviewing
- Merav parter
- Merav parter
- Asaf kanari
- Levitas cantores
- Mensajes selectos tomo 1 pdf
- Comparison of word processors
- Kaye bradley williams
- December leaves poem
- Origin of clowns
- Brand monitoring online
- Kaye kole obituary
- The consent elaine kaye
- Melissa kaye md
- The consent elaine kaye
- Joey kaye
- Loretta trevis
- Word formation processes examples
- Concurrent in os
- Programming massively parallel processors
- Linear pipeline processor