Joram, Elana, Earl Woodruff, Mary Bryson, and Peter H. Lindsey. “The Effects of Revising with a Word Processor on Written Composition.” National Council of Teachers of English 26.2 (1992): 167-93. JSTOR. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:2100/stable/40171302>.
Elana Joram, Earl Woodruff, Mary Bryson, and Peter H. Lindsey, the authors of this journal, are all professors and a part of the National Council of Teachers of English. As they are all educators, this journal article has the bias of educators; they are looking at the word processor as a way of improving the writing process. The article is very focused on the idea of a word processor verses the traditional pen and paper, and the negative and positive affects of the word processor. Because of this focus, the article seems to have been written by educators, for educators.
This article claims that word processors improve writing by making the revision process easier and simpler. Word processors make surface revision easy- they tell you when you spell something wrong, when your grammar is incorrect, etc. While they improve writing on the surface, they also discourage creativity. The National Council of Teachers of English composed a study in which they addressed the question of whether word processors improve or detract from written composition. Word processors would either improve composition because make you revise through the writing process, or the revising would interfere with the composing process and detract from the final piece. They predicted, and later found to have predicted correct, word processors would get in the way and detract from the composing process. It was found that students focus more on surface level corrections when writing on word processors, while when they write with paper and pen they are less likely to correct small errors and focus on the piece of writing as a whole. The one weakness of this article, which clearly stood out, is that it is rather contradictory. It starts off saying word processors improve writing, and ends saying that they detracts from the writing process. This aside, this article is still beneficial to the creators of White Space because it highlights positive and negative aspects of the word processor.
Dalton, David W., and Michael J. Hannafin. “The Effects of Word Processing on Written Composition.” The Journal of Educational Research 80.6 (1987): 338-42. JSTOR. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:2116/stable/27540262>.
This article was written based off of a study done by the Journal of Educational Research. Dalton and Hannafin are both professors of educational psychology. Since they are both educators, the piece is heavily focused on how the word processor affects students rather than how it affects humans as a whole. The piece is a a psychology heavy study and was likely written for other psychologists studying education.
The article discusses the idea of how writing skills are approached- holistically or reductively. The holistic approach focuses on the process of writing rather than minute mechanics while the reductive approach focuses on punctuation, syntax, etc. The article claims that the holistic approach is more beneficial for low achievers who tend to be preoccupied on form rather than substance. Word processors have an effect on each of these approaches. In this study, there is a treatment group and a control group. The treatment group used word processors to complete written assignments three times a week while the control group used the traditional method of a pen and paper. The results of the study show that the use of the word processor had little impact on high achieving students, but was effective for low achieving students. I would say the weakness of this study is the date- it was conducted in 1987. However, this can still be helpful to the creators of White Space because the goal is to create a more simple word processor. If we do more research on what the word processor used at this time was, we will be able to see exactly how this affected those that were a part of the study and the benefits and detriments.
Purcell, Kristen, Judy Buchanan, and Linda Friedrich. “The Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How Writing Is Taught in Schools.” Pew Research Center’s Internet American Life Project. Pew Internet, 16 July 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.
This article is based on a survey done by Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers to see how today’s digital tools have impacted student writing. Purcell is the director of research at Pew Research Center’s Internet American Life Project and Buchanan and Friedrich are teachers. The teachers saw how digital technologies and social networking greatly affect teen’s personalities and creativity and how it encourages writing in more forms. The survey was given to teachers and is therefore has the bias of educators.
The majority of teachers surveyed believed that digital technologies have been beneficial to student’s writing processes. They believed that these technologies allow students to share their writing with a wider audience, encourage personal expression, and encourage collaboration among students. However, the survey also showed the concerns educators have with students using digital technologies. Since short-form writing has become so prevalent in the live’s of teenagers, this manages to slip into formal writing. Students tend to use informal language in formal writing assignments. Students are also more likely to slip into short-form writing styles if they are multi-tasking, like if they are writing a paper while simultaneously on social media. This study is helpful for the creators of White Space because of the distraction mode feature. The distraction mode shuts off the internet which, according to this study, would improve the writing styles of students.
