Computer: "the enemy of careful writing"

os
oscuridad
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:52 pm
Location: on the moors

Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:03 am Post

I'm sure you've seen this already, but this sums up the whole technology thing for me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-Sjg ... re=related
osc

User avatar
Wock
Posts: 2540
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee (USA)
Contact:

Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:51 pm Post

I think dependence on the "Spell Checker" killed careful writing.

:-)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is still dead.

ke
kevinR
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:56 pm

Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:30 pm Post

This is actually a more interesting topic than people usually suppose. Background: I took up typing at a very early age by popular request, typed everything, then got a computer and found writing difficult. Took to pens and pencils (fountain pens and woodless pencils; fussy). Reading around it seems that writing instruments may govern what part of the brain is used to write; the bodily mechanics of writing may differ according to the tool you use to write. So writing with a computer IS different from writing with a typewriter which differs from a pen. And so on. It would be interesting actually to test this theory, but it seems plausible and accounts for the fervency of writers' preferences for pens, pencils, particular typewriters, and software!

dr
druid
Posts: 1721
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:29 pm
Platform: Mac, Win + Linux
Location: Princeton NJ, USA

Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:40 pm Post

Well, I couldn't disagree more, at least in my case: the computer makes me a better, quicker, yet more careful writer, no doubt about it. But I've taught enough writers to know that it's a hugely subjective enterprise: what works for some won't for others. I have to produce lots of copy on deadline. Being able to see a draft that at least resembles print is a godsend.

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24140
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:26 pm Post

I think it would be highly unlikely that the action itself, the mechanical aspect of how one conveys their thoughts, is substantially altered by the technological artefact they are using. Typing, writing, shorthand, dictation---all of these involve sub-systems of the mind that are highly efficient at what they do and (for most of us) are extremely automatic.

Now, what does make a substantial psychological difference is the Outfit Effect. You feel substantially different; your posture will change; your attitude toward life; even aspects of your personality can subtly shift; all depending on whether you are wearing a formal outfit instead of a sweat-suit. For some writers, a candle and a pen is their formal outfit. For others its a laptop in a coffee shoppe. Others need whiskey. Others cannot stand anything other than their specific brand of manual typewriter. Some need Word. Others need full screen. It's all just suiting up, and what we suit into is different for every one of us.

Most of the arguments I've heard against computers are highly specific to the person (fussing about the particulars of an outfit they don't like) making the arguments, or they are not even making it in relation to themselves. They blame the grammar check software and so on but then hastily reassure they don't use these programs. Doesn't seem like much of an argument then.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

Ap
Apollo16
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:23 pm

Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:01 pm Post

I think it would be highly unlikely that the action itself, the mechanical aspect of how one conveys their thoughts, is substantially altered by the technological artefact they are using.


Actually, this is not true. There is a very interesting study that came out of Denmark and is being repeated here in the US. The scientists were trying to determine if teaching kids cursive is now a waste of time. They split the students into two sections. One which learned cursive and one that learned to type. They did a comparative written literacy study and a brain fMRIs on a subset. It is clear that the students who did not learn cursive had smaller vocabularies and less connections between difference parts of the brain associated with speech and reading (Wernike's Area and two others... I don't remember which...). The follow-up study is now in progress where they are teaching the students who learned to type first how to write cursive and the group who learned cursive to type. It may be that you DO need to learn how to both write cursive AND type to be the best and most efficient reader/writer.

I do both. Does this make me "ambitextrous?"

:D

Apollo16

User avatar
nom
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:02 am
Platform: Mac + iOS
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:49 am Post

Apollo16: it seems the jury is still out. While some research suggests that learning new letters is improved by handwriting (Longcamp, et al., 2008), other research suggests that the quality of creative output is not affected (Wells, 2001). Hartley (2007) reported that method of writing had minimal effect on writing style for experienced writers. Another study (Masterson, 2006) suggested that mode has no impact on spelling.

Another study I read, but unfortunately deleted before recording citation, reported several studies that provided mixed evidence. If I am remembering correctly, it reported that some studies suggested typed essays were of lower quality than hand-written ones, but others suggested the way they were written differed but no difference in outcome was measured. The author noted that the studies were quite old, though (late 1990's?), so may not reflect current computer use.

I have heard Norman Doidge speak on the radio a few times, and he seemed convinced that handwriting affects reading ability, but I don't know on what research this is based. I believe he talks about it in his book on brain plasticity (The Brain That Changes Itself) but I haven't yet read it.

Based on the research mentioned above, the tentative conclusion I would draw is that method of writing may impact on learning to read (consistent with the research you mentioned?), but will have minimal impact on writing quality for experienced writers (presumably all of us here). I would be very interested to know more about the Danish study, and US follow-up, you mentioned. Can you post citations?

Note: apart from geeking out over all this, I do have a professional interest.
Complete and utter NOMsense.
Image

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 5941
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:21 am Post

nom wrote:Apollo16: it seems the jury is still out. While some research suggests that learning new letters is improved by handwriting (Longcamp, et al., 2008), other research suggests that the quality of creative output is not affected (Wells, 2001). Hartley (2007) reported that method of writing had minimal effect on writing style for experienced writers. Another study (Masterson, 2006) suggested that mode has no impact on spelling.


Careful... experienced writers will almost always go through several drafts for any important piece of writing. I would expect that any tool-induced differences in the first draft would be gone by the final draft, as the writer transitions from "creative" to "editorial" mode. That's certainly the case with my own work.

But that doesn't mean tools don't matter. A master chef doesn't *need* good knives, but they still make his life easier. In my own experience, tools can have a tremendous impact on both the quality of the first draft and the amount of pain and suffering involved in creating it. That, in turn, would affect the writer's productivity and overall satisfaction with the profession of writing.

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

Ap
Apollo16
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:23 pm

Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:43 pm Post

I would be very interested to know more about the Danish study, and US follow-up, you mentioned. Can you post citations?


Sorry. I do not have the citation. This isn't my field. I noticed the article while reading the ASCD newsletter. The link to that organization is below.

http://www.ascd.org/

They have a newsletter that they send out that highlights educational research-related articles. You click on the link and it goes to the actual article. I do not know where the link sent me. (It was NOT the primary source but that would give you the names of the investigators.)

The reason I remembered the study was that my husband and I had just argued over teaching cursive in school. He took the position that it is a waste of time and I took the position that it is not. A few days later, the article popped up and naturally I had to shove it in his face... er I mean... continue the intellectual discussion of educational pedagogy.

I also read about studies on calligraphy increasing literacy. Have you tried the art education literature?

Sorry again for not being able to locate the original citation.

Apollo16

User avatar
Jaysen
Posts: 6225
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:00 am
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: East-Be-Jesus-Nowhere SC, USA

Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:19 pm Post

I like that chef analogy and I think it really makes the point. The tool may not matter relative to the potential of the creative, but some tools remove barriers to that potential. For me, being able to actually make out the letters means typing as my handwriting is so horrid. But I find that scribbling with a pen is more "enjoyably creative" as I can doodle in the margins to pass time while thinking.

My current "solution" is to keep a pencil and paper near by when my mind starts to stick. A few minutes with stick figures or vain efforts to capture a reasonable representation of a bird on paper and stuff starts moving in the void between the ears. Probably has more to do with embarrassing the cells back to work to end the suffering.
Jaysen

I have a wife and 2 kids that I can only attribute to a wiggle, a giggle, and the realization that she was out of my league so I might as well be happy with her as a friend. 26 years marriage later, I can't imagine life without her. -Me 10/7/09

ImageImage

dr
druid
Posts: 1721
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:29 pm
Platform: Mac, Win + Linux
Location: Princeton NJ, USA

Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:22 pm Post

This has become a very interesting thread, especially as we hear the debates among educators about the value of teaching cursive and/or typing. I would certainly say we need both, beginning early with cursive to teach some hand/eye coordination (so that Xbox does not entirely rule that quadrant) and then typing later on, although many kids pick up hunt-and-peck via computers.

A related area of interest for me has been the decline in the ability of students to read aloud. I don't mean as actors, just normal competence in pronunciation, emphasis, and pacing. I taught at a university for years and regularly forced students to read literary passages aloud. They were atrocious at first but became far better with practice. I always read aloud my own texts and can't imagine writing without some fusing of both the oral and aural components. Will the computer kill off this great human experience, or is it less important than I think?

User avatar
nom
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:02 am
Platform: Mac + iOS
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:23 pm Post

As I pressed "submit" with my former post I realised the glaringly obvious: we are talking about 2 different things here. The first is the importance of learning to write, by hand, as a child and the benefits (beyond legible writing) this has for learning. The second is that, as adult experienced writers, the tools matter less than the thought expressed. We have already mastered both the motor and thinking skills that allow us to write. Hence the importance of hand-writing in education and the limited impact tools (pen or keyboard) have on adult style and content.

So with that in mind...

kewms: The research I was quoting was saying only that (based on timed, first draft, evidence) there was little difference stylistically between text created by experienced writers using either pen or keyboard. Editing is another issue altogether and I agree with you - I would expect it to reduce any remaining differences even more. One thing the author did mention was that keyboard entry appeared to be faster (more words in the given time-frame) - consistent with your chef analogy and thoughts on productivity.

Apollo16: thanks for the additional info. I had a quick look but couldn't find it. I'll try and track it down next weekend. Regarding the, er, informed discussion with your husband, you can mention that you found additional support for your most educated opinion.

Jaysen: I read recently (some time the last couple of weeks, but absolutely no idea where - please don't tell my students that I didn't reference it) that doodling helps you think. That while someone is "distracting" themselves doodling, their brain is really busy. I *think* the author (journalist, radio hack - I don't know) said the brain was working on whatever is at hand, such as integrating information, but am unclear of the rationale for the claim. However, if I could draw better, I'd take this evidence and make the claim. You have my permission. :)

Druid: you have my support. My, admittedly shallow, reading in the area seems to support the claim that writing is important in learning to read. My guess (having not seen *any* literature on typing in childhood) is that typing is important for getting enough stuff produced to get through high-school (let alone university/college). Regarding reading aloud, I do the same thing. Sometimes just sub-vocally, but for "tricky bits" I'll always read aloud, often repeatedly. Everything flows better. I'm ashamed to confess that I never thought of getting my students to do the same. Although, having read their papers, I've already paid penance.
Complete and utter NOMsense.
Image

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24140
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:39 pm Post

I think the comparison between typing and cursive is more like asking whether or not it is okay to make a salad with a Cuisinart instead of a knife and block. One is going to get the job done in a fraction of the time and whether or not the difference can be detected at all by the consumers is bordering on audiophile territory (in other words, I don't see how you could possibly arrange a scientific study on quality of output since that is subjective). The difference between a Wüsthof and a dull dollar knife is more like whether or not your pen is skipping. :)
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

User avatar
Mollys Mum
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 1:38 am

Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:18 am Post

I think there are so many things that can affect the quality of your writing that it's almost impossible to isolate any individual factor.

I was Annie Proulx's copyeditor for many years. The first book of hers I worked on was Heartsongs, and I was blown away by it, called up everyone I knew. I had nice conversations with her; she is a gracious and learned woman (when I worked on The Shipping News I had to get hold of the Dictionary of Newfoundland English, which she helped me locate in a Montreal bookstore--fortunately my ex-home town and I still had family there willing to run errands).

The last book of hers I worked on was Accordion Crimes. I mention this because to my mind, that book was sadly inferior to her other work. (Not everyone shared my opinion). I found out years later that it was written while she was in the throes of moving across the country. Stuff packed up, unpacked, trains of thought derailed, probably some lengthy hiatuses (hiati?).

This is a tangent, I know. On topic, I wrote my first three novels longhand and my latest on the computer. My earlier ones I think were much worse. But I don't think that fact has much to do with the mechanics of my composition. :?

Ca
Carradee
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:38 am
Platform: Mac
Contact:

Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:54 pm Post

nom wrote:Another study (Masterson, 2006) suggested that mode has no impact on spelling.

Another study I read, but unfortunately deleted before recording citation, reported several studies that provided mixed evidence. If I am remembering correctly, it reported that some studies suggested typed essays were of lower quality than hand-written ones, but others suggested the way they were written differed but no difference in outcome was measured. The author noted that the studies were quite old, though (late 1990's?), so may not reflect current computer use.


Somebody isn't taking LEARNING STYLE into account.

I'm primarily visual, BUT the specifics of my visual orientation are uncommon. Most visual learners are image based. I'm word based. Most word based learners are aided best by their own handwriting. I do best with typed words. Most visual learners find colors to be of great help. I find them a hindrance. (Seriously, the easiest way to hide info from me is to highlight it.)

Making me a visual learner, specifically from monochromatic typed words.

I've met a few other people like me, and you know what?

NONE of us can read cursive very well.

Does that affect our spelling in cursive? You betchya.

So I bet those studies' conflicting results stem from failing to pay attention to learning types.
Wanna hydroplane?
--My brother (while driving)