CHARLENE A. VAN LEEUWEN
MARTHA A. GABRIEL
Beginning to write with word processing:
Integrating writing process and
technology in a primary classroom
fStechnology becomes ubiquitous,
teachers can support students' writing
development in new ways.
n a state of organized chaos, students return
from their outdoor recess, grab their snacks,
and retrieve their notebooks and pencils for
writing workshop. One student approaches the
teacher asking, "Whose turn is it to use the computers?" Although Sarah (all names are pseudonyms) is disappointed that it is not her turn today,
she quickly finds Alex, one of the students chosen
to work with the word processor, and shares the
good news with him. This information galvanizes
Alex into action as he packs his remaining snack
away and darts over to the computer corner, anxious to begin his new piece of writing.
This scene might occur in many elementary
schools throughout North America today. As federal, state, and provincial governments provide
substantial monies for placement of computer technologies in schools, the question remains how best
to use this resource in the context of 21 st-century
classrooms. The purpose of this article is to explore
one focused use of these computer technologies and,
in particular, to describe the writing behaviors
demonstrated by a group of grade 1 students who
used word processors to support their writing.
What does the literature say?
Educators have responded to new conceptions
of student learning and the emergence of digital
r4 0,
technologies with continual searches for effective
teaching and learning strategies to meet the needs of
21 st-century learners (Leu, 2001; McKenzie, 2000;
Turbill, 2002). The integration of the new literacies
of information and communication technologies
(ICTs) and the curriculum has become a goal for literacy educators (International Reading Association,
2001; International Reading Association &
National Council of Teachers of English, 1996;
International Society for Technology in Education,
1998; Kinzer, 2003). The integration of ICTs at the
classroom level includes the use of word processors as tools supporting the writing process, the focus of this study.
Sociocultural theories of literacy recognize and
acknowledge the importance of the social context
along with the background experience and skills
of students (Bruner, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). Much
of the research on writing, computers, and young
children is grounded in the work of these social and
cultural theories of language and classroom interaction (Bigge & Shermis, 1999; Cochran-Smith,
1991; Daiute, 1988). Research has demonstrated
that communication patterns among students in
classrooms change when word processors are introduced as writing tools (Dickinson, 1986; Fisher,
1994; Kumpulainen, 1994; Shilling, 1997). Leu
(2002) has pointed out that literacy learning has become increasingly social as technologies and classrooms are integrated. Using a word processor may
facilitate meaning making as students and teachers
interact within the context of a process writing approach. Student talk and reflection can facilitate
sharing and construction of knowledge in a social
setting such as a primary classroom.
2007 International Reading Associa tion (pp. 420-429) doi:10.1598/RT.60,5.2
There are effects on educators as well.
Teachers' philosophy, pedagogy, and instructional
practices with regard to ICT use directly influence
outcomes (Russell, Bebell, Cowan, & Corbelli,
2002). If there is a shift to a more collaborative approach in the environment of a classroom, then the
role of the teacher supporting the writing process is
also transformed (Cochran-Smith, Paris, & Kahn,
1991; Mercer & Fisher, 1992). The teacher becomes facilitator, guide, and participant in a learning community when engaged in computer-based
activities (Labbo, 2004; Snyder, 1993). Even
greater transformations of the role of classroom
teachers may be emerging. Although Cuban (2001)
argued that despite increased access to ICTs, meaningful changes in the instructional practices of
teachers have not occurred, Leu, Karchmer, and
Leu (1999) proposed that "just as new technologies
change literacy, literacy also changes new technologies within a transactional relationship" (p.
638). These researchers suggested that in order to
keep pace with the changing role of technologies in
literacy classrooms, reflective teachers will increasingly determine and share effective ICT integration in the classroom.
Integrating ICTs frequently requires modification of teaching strategies employed by educators.
The use of computers not only affects classroom culture and the social interactions of students and teachers, but also it introduces a new technology (Baker,
2000; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 2000). The
use of a different tool-a computer with wordprocessing software-to complete a task traditionally completed with pencil and paper introduces a new
realm of possible differences in attitudes, interactions, instructional strategies, and written products
(Wood, 2000). In doing so, use of a new tool raises
questions with regard to best practices for students at
all levels of writing development.
This case study sought to examine the impact
that different writing tools had on the writing of beginning writers in the primary grades. The study
focused on a class of grade 1 students, including
aspects such as the physical environment, classroom culture, instructional goals of the teacher, interactions among students, teacher-student
interactions, and the development of student writing while using a word processor. This work is a
component of a larger study that included students
from three primary classrooms (grades 1-3).
Methods
This research was conducted in a grade 1 class
in a rural school in a province on the east coast of
Canada. The purpose of the case study (Stake,
1994) was to develop greater understanding of the
multiple factors involved in the use of word processing by beginning writers, as well as the effect
of integrating ICTs on the classroom environment
and on the teacher. The first author (Van Leeuwen)
spent hours observing in the classroom, examining variations in student writing behavior, the classroom culture, and communication about writing
projects (Patton, 2002). Six boys and seven girls
in grade 1 participated in this study; all of them had
previous computerbxperience either at home or
through their kindergarten program.
Data collection and analysis
Information was collected from classroom observations, informal conversations with the teacher
during field visits, interviews with students and the
teacher, and student writing samples (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999). Observation sessions and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed to capture
oral-language interactions of students with peers,
the teacher, and the researcher.
Classroom visits occurred every three weeks
throughout the school year for 40 to 90 minutes per
visit. Students were observed to see how they used
the two writing media, word processing or pencil
and paper. During classroom visits, samples of
handwritten and word-processed texts produced by
the children were collected, and informal conversations were held with the teacher. Short interviews,
lasting about 10 minutes, were conducted with four
students to further explore their approaches to writing with the two media. These four students were
representative of a range of characteristics such as
gender, kindergarten attendance, and computer experience. Students were asked how they prepared
to write, where they found their ideas for writing,
and whom they approached for help. Field notes
written after each visit captured as many of the activities and actions of the students in the classroom
as possible.
The perspective of the classroom teacher was
explored through informal conversations during
field visits and through a semistructured interview.
0
Beginning to write with word processing
600
Topics discussed in the interview included the following:
"•aspects of student behavior,
"•qualities of student interactions,
"•observations of students during writing
sessions,
"•professional experiences, and
"*the teacher's approaches to writing and
technology.
Technology and teaching experiences
The field notes were annotated to compile information from the notes, audiotapes, and writing
samples. Student writing samples were collected
and assessed using criteria developed by Alberta
Education, Student Evaluation Branch (1997). This
information was coded by one coder, using themes
identified in the literature such as attitudes toward
writing and the teacher's writing instruction
(Clements, 1987; Cochran-Smith et al., 1991;
Mercer & Fisher, 1992) as well as emerging
themes. Emerging themes included interactions
with peers, skill transfer, and classroom dynamics.
An iterative coding process was used until all annotated notes were reviewed and coded (Miles &
Huberman, 1994).
The grade 1 class
In Robin Neville's grade 1 classroom, students' desks were arranged in small groups in the
center. Around the periphery of the room were a
music corner with piano, chairs, and couch; the
teacher's work area and desk; low shelving filled
with children's books, math manipulatives, and
other art supplies; and the computer corner. The
three computers in the classroom were older Apple
machines. In contrast, the school's computer lab
contained 18 new computers, with 3 other computers located outside the lab in the nearby resource
center.
The culture in Robin's classroom reflected a
focus on productive and enthusiastic activity.
Helping her grade 1 students become readers and
writers was a high priority. Children were involved
daily in a process writing approach as they worked
on prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing the various texts they produced.
Expectations were clearly communicated at the
oOO
SThe Reading Teacher
Vol. 60, No. 5
start of writing time and were reviewed at the end.
During writing workshop, three students in the
class were allowed to work at the computers for the
duration of the session. The entire class rotated
through these three computers, so that each child
wrote using a word processor every one and onehalf weeks.
Robin frequently encouraged students who
made a discovery on the computer to extend their
understanding of that discovery. The following exchange is one example:
Robin:
I want you to put your name "Nicholas" in
between quotes.
Nicholas: Quotes? These?
Robin:
These things...and I want a capital "N." So do
that.
Nicholas has discovered the shift key and some of the
things that it can do. He begins to experiment. Robin
notices and encourages him to try a few things. The
teacher then asks him to use this newfound option in
another sentence. (Observation notes)
Students were encouraged to experiment and discover things for themselves in this classroom. They
were also asked to apply what they had discovered
to other circumstances. Problem solving and responsibility were qualities this teacher sought to
develop in students.
Teaching experiences play a significant role in
what goes on within a classroom, and experiences
with technology are no exception. Robin's approach to integrating ICTs and process writing was
constantly changing and evolving:
This is my fourth year teaching grade 1 and as each
year goes by I'm surprised how quickly they catch on to
technology...when it comes to writing I think time spent
in the lab or developing skills with individuals in the
classroom [is time well spent].... Some kids actually
write better on a computer or...compose faster using a
keyboard than pen and paper.... So my use [of] computers is probably expanding as I go along with grade
1.(Teacher interview)
Robin believed that integrating ICTs was important
for students and brought old computers in from
home to set up in the classroom. These provided
the opportunity for grade 1 students to have consis-
February 2007
4
tent access to a word processor to support their
writing.
Findings
Student attitudes toward writinq
and computers
For the most part, students' attitudes toward the
writing they did in their classroom were positive.
When engaged in writing tasks students were generally focused. They were enthusiastic writers both
on and off the computer. Students were often observed counting the number of sentences they had
written. Their body language demonstrated excitement with their progress. Students' enthusiasm to
share their finished work (both handwritten and
computer generated) was equally intense.
Robin placed a high value on writing and
found that students in the class were very motivated when involved in writing. She described how
students spoke about writing: Are we having writing time today? When is our writing time? Can we
go into the computer lab, to finish up a story? Can I
share it with the class? Using the computers was
something the students enjoyed. Robin said that
"even with the ancient technology in my room,
there's still.. .novelty in.. .using the computer to
write" (Teacher interview).
Of the four students interviewed about their
writing tool preference for composing the first draft
of a story, three indicated their preference was for a
word processor, and one student preferred to use
paper and pencil. Students expressed their concern
with the mechanics of writing and the efforts involved with letter formation, spelling words, typing
on the computer, and creating pictures to illustrate
their story. This is expressed in the following
conversation:
Researcher: Why do you like the computer more?
Because, like, we don't have to draw the
Nicholas:
shapes, all you have to do isjust press the
buttons.
Researcher: Now, when you say "draw the shapes," do
you mean making the shape of the letter?
Nicholas: Yeah. (Observation notes)
The effort involved in writing with paper and pencil was a major challenge; students spoke of their
hands tiring when they wrote that way. In contrast,
students enjoyed hunting for letters on the keyboard. Classroom observations confirmed students'
stated preferences related to different writing
tools-pencil and paper or keyboard-when composing a story.
Teacher instruction
Robin indicated that developing keyboarding
skills and some familiarity with basic wordprocessing functions were among the primary
goals for word-processor use in this classroom. To
accomplish this, a variety of instructional strategies
were used, such as
*encouraging students to continue their efforts,
"*helping students focus on the important details, and
"*supporting students as they developed
problem-solving strategies.
Most writing skill instruction was a mixture of
large-group teaching, followed by individual
student-teacher conferences focused on a piece of
the student's writing. In contrast, instruction in
word-processing skills was approached differently. Large-group lessons were not often used. Wordprocessing instruction was frequently embedded
in lessons designed to teach both writing and wordprocessing skills, followed by an opportunity for
practice. The following is from a lesson on capital
letters and punctuation, and it provides a sense of
how this was accomplished:
Robin has students sit on the floor near a monitor so
that they all can see what is happening. Agroup lesson on capital letters and punctuation is the focus. A
file with the "daily message" is called up. Students are
instructed to read the message and then correct the
missing capital letters and punctuation. Robin demonstrates several ways to make capital letters. Two students are asked to help demonstrate the tasks, and
they come over to the keyboard to do this.
(Observation notes)
Often word-processing instruction took the
form of short minilessons slipped into the middle of a writing session. Minilessons were not
often planned in advance of the session. They
were a response to student questions or emerging student needs, or they were presented when
0
Beginning to write with word processing
@00
Robin wished to share strategies helpful for the
entire class. While circulating to observe students' writing, Robin provided advice or guidance on writing skills or conventions to
individual students. This one-to-one coaching
was extended to include word-processing functions when students wrote with word processors.
Another aspect of instruction was the writing
conference. While Robin conducted writing conferences with individual students in the classroom,
this was not the situation in the computer lab. In the
computer lab, students requiring help with wordprocessing functions or hardware problems were
competing with students who needed guidance
about their writing. Conferences in the lab generally took place at the computer, were of shorter duration, and were focused on smaller segments of
text.
Interactions
Interactions between teacher and students, and
among students themselves, occurred frequently
in the writing process classroom, as well as in the
computer lab. The audiotapes from many of the observation sessions revealed the constant hum from
conversation when students were writing. There
were differences observed in the amount of talk
among students depending on where they were
writing; the amount of talk in the computer lab was
consistently higher than in the classroom,
Students were blatant eavesdroppers. Many
times they would enter into an interaction by volunteering information or assistance:
Kayla looks at me and asks, "How do you spell once?"
I ask her how it would start and she says "0-U-C."
Maria, sitting at the next computer listening to our conversation says, "Iknow how to spell it." She points to
her screen. Kayla scoots around the computer table to
see how to spell once. She returns then to her computer and resumes typing. (Observation notes)
These interactions may also have begun with students narrating their own actions as they were faced
with a task on the computer. Something that frequently emerged from these exchanges between students was the discovery of another word-processor
function. In this way, students became peer coaches.
It did not matter who taught the students a skillteacher or peer. If the children wanted to know how
C424 The Reading Teacher
Vol. 60, No. 5
to do soi nething, they were satisfied as long as their
question was answered.
Rob in constantly interacted with students conceming their writing in the classroom and in the
comput -r lab. Aside from regular editing conferences, stte helped students with a variety of revisions
to their vvork. The focus tended to be on writing conventions and skills taught to the class. Robin also
pointed out differences in student-teacher interactions in the computer lab; students did not need as
much atitention and developed skills in working independe ntly. Robin speculated that these observed
differen ces might be the result of students' high level of con centration on typing words.
The last form of interaction occurred with the
revision of computer-based writing, when students
read the text displayed on a classmate's monitor.
Students sometimes offered comments on writing
they hacIjust read. Students were never observed
doing th is with a classmate's handwritten work.
Writing behaviors
Stuclents' writing behaviors using paper and
pencil or word processing revealed some intriguing
differenc-es in the amount of focused writing time,
reading and rereading behaviors, and planning of
their wr:iting. Students with strong writing skills
working in a notebook with a pencil were frequently able to sustain their focus on a writing task
longer tihan when they worked on the computer.
Almost all students with poorer keyboarding skills
seemed to slow down in terms of text production
after 10 or 15 minutes, whether students were composing n ew pieces or transcribing
i
their writing.
Reap
ding and rereading handwritten work appeared t o be for reflection and for determination
of what should come next regarding story development and content. On the computer, reading and
rereadin g was for assessment of what students had
typed arid of whether the correct keys had been
used. Re reading appeared more frequently during
word pn ocessing and occurred in short bursts. In
contrast, students reviewing handwritten work revealed I onger, more sustained rereading of their
piece of writing. This was particularly obvious during com1 osition of a first draft.
Whe,n students were asked how they prepared
to write, they reported using a variety of strategies.
Some st ated that they first prepared their writing
February 2007
tools. Others reported that "thinking" was their
starting point. Some students read or reread a book
they had enjoyed in preparation for writing, and
others sat down to consider which of their personal experiences they wanted to write about. All of
these strategies were used in the classroom during
traditional writing process sessions, but fewer
strategies were used when beginning to write with
a word processor.
Writinq sample analysis
The quality of each of the writing samples was
assessed on three criteria-ideas and order, words
and sentences, and conventions of language.
Analysis of the writing samples revealed that word
processors did not reduce the quality of writing of
these grade 1 students; that is, word-processed and
handwritten pieces were of similar quality.
However, there was a difference in the length of the
texts. Writing samples composed with pencil and
paper were generally longer than those composed
with a word processor. There was a range from 73
to 305 words and a mean of 163 words for handwritten work, compared with 37 to 116 words and
a mean of 71 words for pieces composed with a
word processor.
Discussion
Teacher instruction
As the integrated use of computers becomes
more commonplace in primary-grade curricula, developing a greater understanding of the computer's impact on instruction is increasingly important.
Tailoring writing instruction to the context is an important aspect of effective instruction (CochranSmith et al., 1991; Mercer & Fisher, 1992;
Sandholtz et al., 2000; Snyder, 1993). One challenge of group lessons in the computer lab stems
from the students' desire to begin to use the computers. They are not easily engaged by a demonstration lesson that is not hands-on for them.
Lesson timing may need to be a more important
consideration based on the finding that almost all
students with poor keyboarding skills started slowing in their production of text after 10 or 15 minutes. If students start to lose focus, teachers need
to consider different ways to break up keyboard-
ing time so the final portion of the writing period
is used effectively. The midpoint of a writing session with word processors may be better timing for
a minilesson than at the beginning, when students
are eager to use the computers.
Classroom Interactions
The types of interactions observed, comments
by the teacher, and responses drawn from the student
interviews reveal the power and frequency of peer
interactions. Observations revealed that students relied on one another for help with spelling and word
processing functions. This is similar to findings by
Labbo (2004); Lomangino, Nicholson, and Sulzby
(1999); and Philips (1995). The help that students
provide one another redirects some of the demands
on the teacher's attention, enabling the teacher to
focus on higher-level questions and problems. Such
help also enhances students' problem-solving skills.
Most help provided by students to their peers was
in the form of direction and generally did not incorporate explanation. This confirms the importance of
peer interactions while recognizing the limitations of
such assistance.
Classroom observations revealed that the
teacher was more tolerant of student talk in the
computer lab setting. Increased talk among peers
suggests that teachers need to accept a greater degree of interaction in a computer lab. This increased tolerance of student interactions while
using the computer may have encouraged students
to help their peers. Some research into collaborative writing has found improvements in the quality
of writing when students engage in metacognitive
talk about their text (Dickinson, 1986; Jones &
Pellegrini, 1996). This suggests the possibility that
allowing greater task-related interaction among
students when they are writing with word processors may result in improved writing quality.
The one-on-one interaction of a writing conference was different when conducted in a computer lab as compared to the classroom. Content was
different because various word-processing skills
or keyboard issues were frequently addressed.
Conferences were shorter in the computer lab because the teacher and student did not work through
the entire text in one sitting but addressed one or
two issues, and then the student returned to writing.
This may be due to challenges in redirecting the
0
S
Beginning to write with word processing
Oos
S
student's attention from the computer to the text.
This could also be the result of students' demands
for speedy assistance with word-processor-related
functions in order to continue with their writing
task.
Writing conferences generally took place at the
student's computer workstation where constraints
of the physical environment may have played a
role. The teacher and student did not move to a separate table or area of the room to signal to others
that a writing conference was in progress. This
seemed to give other students greater license to interrupt the conference, given the more diverse demands for assistance in the computer lab. The
physical effects of standing bent over a computer
screen for several minutes to conduct a writing
conference may also have an impact.
Writing behaviors
In this study, observations of students writing
with computers reveal that they rarely create a story web or plan. One reason for this may be that
making changes with a word processor is easier,
and writers count on the revision process to refine
their work. Previous research has not determined
how reduced planning affects the quality of grade 1
students' stories. There has been speculation that
writers compensate for this reduction in planning
by reading and rereading their work (Haas, 1989).
The current study did find differences in the reading behavior of participants when composing, with
short, more frequent reading of word-processed
text. This shift in reading patterns was also found in
a study of slightly older students in Australia
(Sutherland-Smith, 2002).
Frustration and reluctance were more frequently observed in students when they were transcribing, a less interesting task compared to composing.
This is also a finding in studies with older students
(Cochran-Smith et al., 1991; Mumtaz, 2001;
Seawel, Smaldino, Steele, & Lewis, 1994). The
keyboarding skills of younger students did not appear to interfere with their composing because very
beginning writers have a slower composing and inscribing rhythm (Cochran-Smith et al.). Incorrect
finger positioning did not seem to impede students'
success or enthusiasm in using a keyboard, an observation also noted by Gemmell (2003). Even students who expressed a preference for handwriting
(42
The Reading Teacher
Vol. 60, No. 5
stories s1till had strong interest in using the computers. qo participant ever said that he or she
would rather not use the computer.
Writ ing behaviors observed in the computer
lab migh t also result from students' differing levels
of conce ntration when typing words. Alternative
explanati ons for these differences in behavior may
be that st udents are more autonomous in this environment, or more motivated to try invented spelling
on the ccimputer because editing is easier. Another
potential explanation is that they are more absorbed
with the technology and, as a result, are less involved wtith the adults around them. Students may
have been helping one another more frequently because th ere was a higher tolerance of talk among
students in the lab. The combination of influences
at work ' vithin the environment and how they shape
one anot]her, and the understanding and practices of
the teact ler, are likely the source of the observed
changes.• This finding is in agreement with
Cochran -Smith et al. (1991), Jones and Pellegrini
(1996), md Snyder (1994).
lerations for classroom
Consid
pract! ;ee
A nu
imber of implications for classroom practice emei
rged from the findings of this study. When
integrati
ng word processing and the writing program, teiichers should consider the following:
De velop realistic expectations when implementing a word-processing component in the
process writing program. When teachers plan
to integrate word processing and their writing
wo rkshop, a number of questions must be addre ssed. What role will the teacher play?
Fac:ilitator, guide, or provider of direct instructioii? When should keyboarding be introduced
to children? What word-processing skills
shc9uld be introduced to grade 1 students?
• Pla n to adjust current instructional strategies.
Te•ichers need to develop and adjust instructioinal strategies in order to assist students in
carTying out all aspects of the writing
prc cess, from prewriting to final revisions.
Wcrking with the technology brings a new set
of decisions that must be made: Who will
wr ite with the word processor today? How
February 2007
much work will students do in pairs?
Individually? How much peer mentoring will
be allowed? Will students be encouraged to
assist their peers?
" Schedule feedback times for students. Writing
conferences play a critical role in the writers'
workshop. Teachers must consider how to ensure that appropriate feedback is given to students when they write with a word processor.
Will writing conferences happen at computer
terminals? At a table away from the bank of
computers? Will teacher and student be able
to sit down together? Should the student print
the piece of writing to be discussed?
"*Be prepared for students to focus on the computers, not on a lesson, in the computer lab.
In-class preparations before going to the
computer lab may need to take on a new focus to address the students' impatience to begin using computers as soon as they arrive.
Teachers could give students minimal instruction before leaving the classroom and let
them begin working on the computers immediately. A lesson could then be timed to provide a break for students from keyboarding
when those with weaker skills begin to lose
their focus, probably at the 10- to 15-minute
mark.
- Teach students skills in working collaboratively. Peer teaching can be a powerful tool;
however, students need instruction in how to
work effectively with one another. What roles
will students assume? Which team member
should find the next letter? Who could work
on checking the spelling? Would peer help
be more effective if the peer teacher dictated
the next letter or word?
Summary
This study affords an exploration of how beginning writers learn to write using different instruments, and it also provides further information
about the relationships among students, teachers,
the writing process, and the use of word processors as tools. The dynamic interplay of influences
on classroom culture and on the interactions among
individuals within a grade 1 classroom is described.
From the observations in this study, it is clear that
no one composing tool is able to serve all the needs
of beginning writers. Word processors are tools that
can complement the range and type of writing activities in elementary school classrooms. The leadership role played by the classroom teacher in
implementing word processing in the writing curriculum is a critical component in determining the
felicitous use of this tool.
Van Leeuwen teaches at the University of
Prince Edward Island in Canada. Gabriel
teaches at the same university.She may be
contacted there (550 University Avenue,
Charlottetown,Prince Edward Island, CIA 4P3,
Canada).E-mail mqabriel®upeI.ca.
References
Alberta Education, Student Evaluation Branch. (1997).
Classroomassessment materialsproject (CAMP) grades
1&2. Edmonton, AB: Education Advantage.
Baker, E.A. (2000). Instructional approaches used to integrate literacy and technology. Reading Online. Retrieved
August 15, 2006, from http://www.readingonline.orgl
articles/art-index.asp?HREF=baker
Bigge, M.L., &Shermis, S.S. (1999). Learning theories for
teachers (6th ed.). New York: Longman.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education.Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Clements, D.H. (1987). Computers and young children: A re-
view of research. Young Children, 43(1), 34-44.
Cochran-Smith, M.(1991). Word processing and writing in
elementary classrooms: A critical review of related lit-
erature. Review of EducationalResearch, 61(1), 107-155.
Cochran-Smith, M., Paris, C.L., &Kahn, J.L. (1991). Learning
to write differently: Beginning writers and word processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in
the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Daiute, C. (1988). The early development of writing abilities: Two theoretical perspectives. In J.L. Hoot &S.B.
Silvern (Eds.), Writing with computers in the early grades
(pp. 10-22). New York: Teachers College Press.
Dickinson, D.K. (1986). Cooperation, collaboration, and a
computer: Integrating a computer into a first-second
grade writing program. Research in the Teaching of
English, 20, 357-378.
Fisher, E. (1994). Joint composition at the computer:
Learning to talk about writing. Computers and
Composition, 11,251-262.
Gemmell, S.(2003). A study of keyboarding instructionand
the acquisitionof word processingskills. (ERIC Document
Beginning to write with word processing 4
go0
0
Reproduction Service No. ED477756). Unpublished master's thesis, Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, PA.
Haas, C. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects of word processing on planning.
Research in the Teaching of English, 23,181-207.
International Reading Association. (2001). Integratingliteracy and technology in the curriculum (Position statement).
Newark, DE: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from
http://www.readinq.org/downloads/positions/ps1048.
technology.pdf
International Reading Association & National Council of
Teachers of English. (1996). Standardsfor the English
language arts. Newark, DE; Urbana, IL: Authors.
Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http://www.
ncte.org/print.asp?id=110846&node=204
International Society for Technology in Education. (1998).
National educationaltechnology standards for students.
Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2006,
from http://cnets.iste.orq/students/s stands.html
Jones, I., & Pellegrini, A.D. (1996). The effects of social relationships, writing media, and microgenetic development on first-grade students' written narratives.
American EducationalResearch Journal,33(3), 691-718.
Kinzer, C.K. (2003). The importance of recognizing the expanding boundaries of literacy. Reading Online. Retrieved
September 11, 2006, from http://www.reading
online.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=kinzer
Kumpulainen, K. (1994). Collaborative writing with computers and children's talk: A cross-cultural study. Computers
and Composition, 11,263-273.
Labbo, L.D. (2004). Author's computer chair. The Reading
Teacher, 57, 688-691.
Leu, D.J., Jr. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students for
new literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher,
54, 568-572. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from
http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec-ndex.as,
?HREF=rt/3-01 column/index.html
Leu, D.J., Jr. (2002). Internet workshop: Making time for
literacy. The Reading Teacher, 55, 466-472. Retrieved
September 6, 2006, from http://www.readinqonline.orq/
electronic/elec-index.asp?HREF=/electronic/RT/
2-02-Column/index.html
Leu, D.J., Jr., Karchmer, R.A., & Leu, D.D. (1999). The Miss
Rumphius effect: Envisionments for literacy and learning
that transform the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 52,
636-642. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from
http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec-index.asp
?HREF=rt/rumphius.html
Lomangino, A.G., Nicholson, J., &Sulzby, E. (1999). The nature of children'sinteractionswhile composing together
on computers (CIERA Report #2-005). Ann Arbor, Mh:
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading
Achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED447477)
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
. •
(.
The Reading Teacher
Vol. 60, No. 5
McKenzie, J. (2000). Beyond technology: Questioning,research, and the information literate school. Bellingham,
WA: FNO.
Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help children to learn? An analysis of teachers' interventions in
computer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2,
339-355.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative dataanalysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children's enjoyment and perception of
computer use in the home and the school. Computers &
Education, 36, 347-362.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Philips, D.(1995). Evaluationof exploratorystudies in educationalcomputing. Study 6: Using the word processor to
develop skills of written expression. Final report. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED387820)
Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., & Corbelli, M. (2002). An
AlphaSmart for each student: Does teaching and learning
change with full access to word processors? Paper presented at the 23rd National Educational Computing
Conference, San Antonio, Texas. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED475950)
Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (2000). The evolution of instruction in technology-rich classrooms. In R.
Pea (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and
learning(pp. 255-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seawel, L., Smaldino, S.E., Steele, J.L., & Lewis, J.Y. (1994).
A descriptive study comparing computer-based word
processing and handwriting on attitudes and performance of third and fourth grade students involved in a program based on a process approach to writing. Journal
of Computing in Childhood Education,5(1), 43-59.
Shilling, W.A. (1997). Young children using computers to
make discoveries about written language. Early
Childhood Education Journal,24, 253-259.
Snyder, I. (1993). The impact of computers on students' writing: A comparative study of the effects of pens and word
processors on writing context, process and product.
Australian Journalof Education,37(1), 5-25.
Snyder, I. (1994). Writing with word processors: The computer's influence on the classroom context. Journalof
Curriculum Studies, 26,143-162.
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy web:
Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading
Teacher,55, 662-669.
Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy and
pedagogy: A framework for examining theory and practice. Reading Online. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from
http://www.readingonline.orgrJnteernational]interindex.asp?H REF=turbill4/index.html
February 2007
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higherpsychological processes (M.Cole, V.John-Steiner,
S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. &Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published
1934)
Wood, J.M. (2000). A marriage waiting to happen:
Computers and process writing. Boston: Education
Development Center. Retrieved September 6, 2006,
from http://www.edtechleaders.org/Resources/Readings/
UpperElemLiteracy/Wood ComputersWriting.htm
Bring engaging literacy instruction into your classroom with
ReadWriteThink.org!
Discover ReadWriteThink's rich collection of materials for teaching reading and language
arts ingrades K-12, including research-based lesson plans, interactive online activities for
students, and a calendar of significant literary events-all available online for free.
I
Less
I
Standards
I
- eRsur7e
I Student Materials I
;9 - Newark, DE 19714-8139 - 800-336-323 - 302-731-1600 - www.readinq.orq
Beginning to write with word processing
0
29•
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: Beginning to write with word processing: Integrating
writing process an
SOURCE: The Reading Teacher 60 no5 F 2007
PAGE(S): 420-9
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.reading.org/