Computers Can Enhance Transactions between Readers and WritersAuthor(s): Margaret A. MooreSource: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 42, No. 8, Empowerment through Literacy (Apr., 1989), pp.608-611Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200241 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 06:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.28 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EMPOW ERMENT TECHNIQUES

Margaret A. Moore

Computers can

enhance transactions

between readers

and writers

Pairs of students read, compose,

write, and edit their work.

Everyday I can't wait to get to school because I

can't wait to get on to the computer and work on

the word processor.

I am eager and I think every other pupil in my class is as eager as me. There

fore, I think children would be eager to come to

school if they experience seeing their own crea

tion of words on the computer screen.

It is refreshing to perceive this student's sense of delight in learning, her joy in

learning. This enchantment with learning was characteristic of many 4th and 5th grade students in a large Southeastern U.S. school

district. How, then, did these refreshing im

pressions of school emerge for these students?

Perhaps it was the personalized use of technol

ogy in a developmental writing program. The following selection describes how

one school district integrated the use of word

processing technology with its developmental

writing program (DWP). The additional use of word processing technology offered an

exciting, fresh approach to the learning envir

onment, an environment which was personal

ized as students and teachers shared their creation of words on the computer screen or

on neat, legible, printed pages.

Theoretical perspectives Understanding how students learn and

how they learn language provides valuable in formation which should guide the reading/

writing curriculum (Goodman, 1986; Graves,

1987). Lefevre (1970, p. 75) argues that lan

guage learning in school should "parallel [children's] early childhood method of learn

ing to speak [their] native tongue?playfully, through delighted experiences of discovery?

through repeated exposure to language forms

and patterns, by creating imitation and manip ulation, and by personal trial and error, with

kindly (and not too much) correction from

adults." As teachers provide opportunities for these "delighted experiences" of discovery

within the classroom, language might expand and develop.

Smith (1977) and Goodman (1986) fur ther suggest that language development oc

curs in genuine communication experiences which involve an audience-listeners for talk

ing and readers for writing. In her study, Heath (1983) underscored the importance of children's talk in language learning. Similarly, Brown (1979) argued that an important goal of educators is to enable students to communi

608 The Reading Teacher April 1989

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.28 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

cate and to understand what others have com

municated, intentionally or not.

The use of word processing technology

appeared to be an efficient way to address the

needs of a language learning curriculum. The

collaborative, cooperative environment of

computers might provide a vehicle to promote continuous and recurring transactions among readers and writers. In particular, the word

processor and its powerful editing tools might

provide a natural way for students to explore oral and written language in an environment

which does not separate reading, writing, lan

guage, and real life experiences. Word proces sors might enable writers to manipulate and

use oral and written language as they delete,

insert, and rearrange text quickly and easily.

Program description The Developmental Writing Program

(DWP) was designed according to theorists in the field of composing, including Emig,

Graves, and Murray (T\irner, 1984). Viewing

composing as a process rather than a product, supervisors in the school district devised a

systematic, developmental approach to teach

students to write clearly and effectively. The

goals and ideals of the DWP were successful.

Product evaluation indicated that the writing quality of students participating in DWP im

proved significantly. Using word processing

technology with the DWP, however, might en

courage students to edit and revise more effi

ciently and quickly.

Pilot program During the fall, students and teachers

were trained in the use of word processing

technology. After this training, students and

teachers followed the DWP with the use of word processors. Three additional inservices

were planned during the school year to help teachers further integrate computers with the

DWP and resolve organizational and manage ment issues. The following section describes

the routines they developed in order to inte

grate computers with the DWP more effi

ciently.

Integrating computers with the DWP

Writing opportunities began in the class

room during the prewriting stage. Teachers

The use of word processing appeared to be an efficient way to address the needs of a language learning curriculum. Photo by Mary Loewenstein-Anderson

and students discovered their ideas about top ics during brainstorming sessions through

webbing, notetaking, interviewing, listening, or observing. Students could then organize and synthesize these ideas in small groups or

independently. Once these ideas were organized and syn

thesized, students chose a story idea and a

first draft emerged. While students scribbled, drew, or drafted their story ideas, teachers in

termingled among the students, holding brief conferences, encouraging, and prompting stu

dents. Gaining quick overviews of how the

class was working and where the problems were located enabled teachers to alleviate ini

tial hesitancy and extinguish writing blocks

during this stage of composing. This schedule was followed during the

first 2 days of the week. On the 3rd day, stu

dents used the word processor to enter the

story on the computer. Three trained "com

puter assistants" facilitated a smooth transition

from the classroom to the computer labora

tory containing 15 computers. They loaded

the Bank Street Writer, word processing pro

gram, and checked all equipment, including die printer, prior to the arrival of their class.

Once the students entered the computer labo

ratory, they either continued to work on their

drafts at individual desks or they worked in

pairs at the computer. Partners assisted one another during this

stage. Readers reminded writers to insert

punctuation, to capitalize words, or to change

Computers can enhance transactions between readers and writers 609

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.28 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

spelling of words. Since dictionaries and the

sauri were accessible, partners could also

quickly check spelling or locate better word choices when appropriate.

Partners also conferred with one another

during this stage. Typical questions asked by the reader included: "What do you mean by that sentence?" "Tell me more about...."

"What will happen next?" "What about using this word...?" "Can we combine these two

sentences?" Typical questions asked by the writer included: "How do you spell...?" "Do I

need a comma/period here?" "What's another

way to say...?" "What do you think about this

word/sentence?" "How do you think the story should begin/end?"

Teachers easily monitored the writing of

the students, assisting students with their writ

ing through mini conferences during this time.

If students were ready to print a published draft, teachers became the "top editor," check

ing the piece for additional errors.

After 15 minutes, the partners switched roles?the reader became the writer; the

writer became the reader. All students had

their own data disk, so they could quickly and

easily access their own writing piece on any

given day.

Following this second 15 minute period, students switched rolls again. Students work

ing at the desks exchanged roles with those

working at the computer. Students who were

previously working on the computer moved to

the desks and continued to work on their draft or other related assignments.

Once all students had an opportunity to

use the computer, students returned to the

classroom. A smooth transition from the com

puter laboratory to the classroom was again facilitated by the "computer assistants," who

printed out final drafts for various students

and checked all equipment before departing. All students also had the opportunity to

work with their partners at the computer in

their classroom. Schedules for each pair of

students were posted so that all students might have at least one more opportunity to work on

the computer during the week.

On the 4th day, students shared neat, legi ble copies of their stories with their peer edi

tors. As students shared their papers with

others, they recognized the strengths of their

stories, identified problems within their sto

ries, considered possible revisions for their

stories, or proofed their final version of their

stories. Similar transactions between readers

and writers continued until the writing piece was published.

Using computers to alleviate young writers9 concerns

Students seemed to be more willing to

consider revisions and changes because the re

copying penalty had been eliminated. One stu

dent explained, "Instead of having to write

reports freehand and getting writer's cramp,

you can use the computer and save a lot of

time, paper, and not have to scrub away

spongy little eraser marks."

Using the computer also appeared to al

leviate their concerns about messy papers or

poor hand writing during the revising and ed

iting stages. For example, one student stated, "I like the word processor because you don't

make many mistakes and when you erase you don't mess up your paper." Others reported,

"Using the computer I can read what I type better than what I write."

Reflections about the pilot program The additional use of word processing

technology seemed to complement the recur

sive nature of the writing process. Students

began to view writing as a process in an envi

ronment which included interactions between

teachers and students. Literacy emerged

through the transactions between readers and

writers.

Throughout the week, students and teach ers wrote, typed, conferred, and revised their

writing in a productive, cooperative environ

ment. One principal commented, "I have never seen the students so interested and in

volved with their work."

Students collected information, drafted

their ideas, and conferred with their teacher

and peers in the classroom. Once a draft was

completed, students read, revised, and edited

their writing more easily due to the collabora

tive nature of the computer screen. One stu

dent commented, "When I write on the

computer, I can edit my story or whatever I

am writing while it is still in front of me.

Also, it is a lot neater." Another reported, "I

can type better on the computer, and while I

am typing, my partner can check it."

The powerful editing tools of the word processor enabled students to manipulate oral

610 The Reading Teacher April 1989

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.28 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and written language as they inserted, deleted, and rearranged text. Students were learning about the process of writing as they spoke,

thought about, and wrote about their writing. Teachers were also very comfortable and

enthusiastic about the program. Others added,

"Computers and word processors seem to cap ture the creative and imaginative minds of the

students."

When asked how word processors as

sisted them in their instruction, teachers ex

plained, "Students who had difficulty with

rewriting and revising have increased their

ability to edit and revise their compositions due to the ease by which editing and revising is accomplished with word processors" or

"Students who refused to write earlier in the

year are successfully completing assign ments." They also pointed out, "Instructors

can more easily aid students in the revision

process."

Throughout the year, teachers and stu

dents learned about themselves and others in a

community which promoted literacy. They ex

panded and elaborated language in a mean

ingful, functional environment. Language

learning became an act of self knowledge and

self discovery as they distinguished meaning and made meaning more explicit. Students

manipulated and imitated language through trial and error with "kindly correction" from

their teacher.

In conclusion, I hope that more students

will have this wonderful opportunity to use

word processing technology in their writing program. The findings of this pilot program indicated that students using word processors

significantly improved the quality of their

writing compared with students not using word processors. The computer screen facili

tated discussions, editing, and revising. The

neat, clean typed text made many students feel

that they were good writers.

The powerful editing tools of the word

processor enabled students to explore and ex

periment with the spelling of words, the ar

rangement of words or sentences within a

story, or the choices of words for various texts. Language learning seemed to evolve

naturally through "delighted experiences of

discovery."

Moore teaches at Eastern Michigan University,

Ypsilanti, Michigan, and researches the inte

gration of computers with the reading/writing process.

References

Brown, Roger. "Some Priorities in Language Arts Educa tion." Language Arts, vol. 56 (May 1979), pp. 483-84.

Goodman, Kenneth. What's Whole in Whole Language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1986.

Graves, Donald, and Virginia Stuart. Write from the Start. New York, NY: New American Library, 1987.

Heath, Shirley B. "Research Currents: A Lot of Talk about

Nothing." Language Arts, vol. 60 (November 1983), pp. 999-1007.

Lefevre, Carl A. Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1970.

Smith, Frank. "The Uses of Language." Language Arts, vol. 54 (September 1977), pp. 638-44.

Turner, Susan. "Developmental Writing Program." Annual evaluation report. Tampa, FL: Hillsborough School Dis

trict, 1984.

A special journal about younger readers Have you noticed that The Reading Teacher carries only articles about reading among younger chil dren (preschool and elementary school years)? If you're looking for information about reading among older children or adults, you'll find the appropriate material in the Journal of Reading.

Both RT and JR are published as a membership service by the International Reading Association. You'll also find useful information in the Association's bimonthly newspaper, Reading Today, and in

its other two journals, the Reading Research Quarterly and Lectura y Vida (in Spanish), both of which are quarterlies carrying articles on learners of any age.

For more information, see the IRA advertisement in this issue.

Computers can enhance transactions between readers and writers 611

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.28 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:04:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions