The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002

Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-52

  Goldberg, Amie ^b   Russell, Michael ^a   Cook, Abigail ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042670967     PISSN: 15402525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (131)

1. Albertson, L. R. & Billingsley, F. F. (1997, March). Improving young writers' planning and reviewing skills while story-writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
2. Allen, G. & Thompson, A. (1994, April). Analysis of the effect of networking on computer-assisted collaborative writing in a fifth grade classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
3. Allison, B. (1999). Facilitating student achievement in writing through the deft employment of computer technology. Unpublished Master's Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University/IRI.
4. Baker E. & Kinzer, C.K. (1998). Effects of technology on process writing: Are they all good? National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 428-440.
5. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.
6. Barrera, M. T., III, Rule, A. C., & Diemart, A. (2001). The effect of writing with computers versus handwriting on the writing achievement of first-graders. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 28.
7. Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
8. Bennett, R.E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 1(1). Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/ jtla/journal/v1n1.shtml
9. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. & Weasenforth, D. (2001). E-mail and word processing in the esl classroom: How the medium affects the message. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 135-165.
10. Bogard, E. A. (1998). The effects of computer-mediated writing on the quality and quantity of foreign language composing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.
11. Borthwick, A. G. (1993, April). Effects of keyboarding/typewriting on the language arts skills of elementary school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
12. Bowman, M. (1999). Children, word processors and genre. Scottish Educational Review, 31(1), 66-83.
13. Bracey, G. (1992). Creative writing: Do word processors help or hurt students' creativity? Electronic Learning, 12(3), 12.
14. Breese, C., Jackson, A., & Price, P. (1996). Promise in impermanence: Children writing with unlimited access to word processors. Early Child Development and Care, 118, 67-91.
15. Brigman, D. J. P. (1995). The effects of writing with pencil and paper compared with writing with a computer and a word processing program on first-grade students who have difficulty writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
16. Bruce, B. & Peyton, J. K. (1992). A Situated Evaluation of Computer Networking to Teach Writing. Technical Report No. 565. Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
17. Bucci, S. M. (1996). Seven at-risk fifth-graders and factors that may influence the quality of their written text: From paper and pencil to word processed drafts (writing). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
18. Burley, H. (1994, January). Postsecondary novice and better than novice writers: Effects of word processing and a very special computer assisted writing lab. Paper presented at the Southwestern Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
19. Butler, S. & Cox, B. (1992). Discovery: Writing with a computer in grade one: A study in collaboration. Language Arts, 69, 633-640.
20. Casey, J. M. (1992). Writing to read in the classroom: A literature-based writing literacy environment. Simi Star Project Report. (ED 367952).
21. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107-155.
22. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (1st ed.) Hillsadale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Creskey, M. N. (1992). The Perspective of hindsight. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(1), 79-84.
24. Daiute, C. (1986, May). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 141-59.
25. DeFoe, M. C. (2000). Using directed writing strategies to teach students writing skills in middle grades language arts. Unpublished Ed.D. Practicum II Report, Nova Southeastern University.
26. D'Odorico, L. & Zammuner, V. L. (1993). The influence of using a word processor on children's story writing. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(1), 51-64.
27. Dodson, L. E. (2000). The effects of using technology to enhance student ability to read, organize and write informative text. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Manitoba, British Columbia, Canada.
28. Dybdahl, C. S., Shaw, D. G., & Blahous, E. (1997). The impact of the computer on writing: No simple answers. Computers in the Schools, 13(3), 41-53.
29. Ediger, M. (1996). Middle school pupil writing and the word processor (ED393101).
30. Escobedo, T. H. & Allen, M. (1996, April). Preschoolers' emergent writing at the computer. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
31. Etchison, C. (1989). Word processing: A helpful tool for basic writers. Computers and Composition, 6(2), 33-43.
32. Fan, H.-L. & Orey, M. (2001). Multimedia in the classroom: Its effect on student writing ability. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5).
33. Fletcher, D. C. (2001). Second graders decide when to use electronic editing tools. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 155-74.
34. Freitas, C. V. & Ramos, A. (1998, February). Using technologies and cooperative work to improve, oral, writing, and thinking skills: Voices from experience. Proceedings of the Selected Research and Development Presentations at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), St. Louis, MO.
35. Gaddis, B., Napierkowski, H., Guzman, N., & Muth, R. (2000, October). A comparison of collaborative learning and audience awareness in two computermediated writing environments. Paper presented at the Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 23rd, Denver, CO.
36. Gallick-Jackson, S. A. (1997). Improving narrative writing skills, composition skills, and related attitudes among second grade students by integrating word processing, graphic organizers, and art into a process approach to writing. Unpublished M.S. Practicum Project, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
37. Glass, G. V (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.
38. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M.L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
39. Glennan, T. K. & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a national strategy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
40. Godsey, S. B. (2000). The effects of using microsoft word[r] on journal word counts in the high school english classroom. Unpublished master of arts action research project, Johnson Bible College, Knoxville.
41. Greenleaf, C. (1994). Technological indeterminacy. The role of classroom writing practices and pedagogy in shaping student use of the computer. Written Communication, 11(1), 85-130.
42. Grejda, G. F. & Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Effects of word processing on sixth graders' holistic writing and revisions. Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), 144-149.
43. Hagler, W. J. (1993). The effects of the word processor on the revision behaviors of sixth-grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn.
44. Hannafin, M. J. & Dalton, D. W. (1987, July/August). The effects of word processing on written composition. The Journal of Educational Research, 80 338-42.
45. Haas, C. & Hayes, J. R. (1986). Pen and paper versus the machine: Writers composing in hard-copy and computer conditions (CDC Technical Report No. 16). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University, Communication Design Center.
46. Hartley, J. (1993). Writing, thinking, and computers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), pp. 22-31.
47. Head, B. B. (2000). Revision instruction and quality of writing by eighth-grade students using paper and pencil or word processing. Unpublished doctoral disertation, Oakland University, Rochester.
48. Hedges, L. (1981). Distributed theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators, Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128.
49. Hedges, L. & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
50. Hood, L. M. (1994). Effects of computer correspondence on student writing (Technical Report). Curry School of Education: University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
51. Hunt, Morton. (1997). How science takes stock: The story of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
52. Hydrick, C. J. (1993). The interaction of a nine-year-old with a word processor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
53. Jackiewicz, G. (1995). The effect of computer based instruction on writing at the elementary level. Unpublished master's of arts thesis, Kean College of New Jersey, Union.
54. Jackowski-Bartol, T. R. (2001). The impact of word processing on middle school students. Unpublished master's thesis, Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia.
55. Jankowski, L. (1998). Educational computing: Why use a computer for writing? Learning and Leading with Technology, 25(6), 30-33.
56. Jones, I. (1994a). The effect of a word processor on the written composition of second-grade pupils. Computers in the Schools, 11(2), 43-54.
57. Jones, I. (1994b). First-grade students' computer supported writing: Metacognitive and linguistic effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
58. Jones, I. & Pellegrini A. D. (1996). The effects of social relationships, writing media, and microgenetic development on first-grade students' written narratives. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 691-718.
59. Joram, E., Wooddruff, E., Bryson, M. & Lindsay, P. (1992). The effects of revising with a word processor on written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(2), 167-193.
60. Keetley, E. D. (1995). Comparison of first grade computer assisted and handwritten process story writing. Unpublished master's thesis, Johnson and Wales University, Providence.
61. Kehagia, O. & Cox, M. (1997). Revision changes when using word processors in an english as a foreign language context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(3), 239-253.
62. Kerchner, L. B. & Kistinger, B. J. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers, and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(4), 329-335.
63. Kumpulainen, K. (1994). Collaborative writing with computers and children's talk: A cross-cultural study. Computers and Composition, 11(3), 263-273.
64. Kumpulainen, K. (1996). The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 6(3), 243-261.
65. Kurth, R. J. (1987). Using word processing to enhance revision strategies during student writing activities. Educational Technology, 27(1), 13-19.
66. Lam, F. S. & Pennington, M. C. (1995). The computer vs. the pen: a comparative study of word processing in a Hong Kong secondary classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8(1), 75-92.
67. Langone, J., Levine, B., Clees, T.J., Malone, M., & Koorland, M. (1996). The differential effects of a typing tutor and microcomputer-based word processing on the writing samples of elementary students with behavior disorders. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 141-158.
68. Lerew, E. L. (1997). The use of computers to improve writing skills among lowachieving hispanic students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, La Verne.
69. Lewis, R. B. (1998). Enhancing the writing skills of students with learning disabilities through technology: An investigation of the effects of text entry tools, editing tools, and speech synthesis. Final Report. San Diego, CA: Department of Special Education, San Diego State University.
70. Lewis, R. B., Ashton, T. M., Haapa, B., Kieley, C. L., & Fielden, C. (1999). Improving the writing skills of students with learning disabilities: Are word processors with spelling and grammar checkers useful? Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 87-98.
71. Lichtenstein, N. (1996). The effect of word processing on writing achievement. Unpublished master's project, Kean College of New Jersey, Union.
72. Lipsey, M. W. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
73. Lipsey, M.W. (1992) Juvenile delinquency treatment: a meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L.V. Hedges, R.J. Light, T.A. Louis and F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
74. Lohr, L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1996). Using a hypertext environment for teaching process writing: An Evaluation study of three student groups. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (18th, Indianapolis, IN, 1996).
75. Lomangino, A. G., Nicholson, J., & Sulzby, E. (1999). The Nature of Children's Interactions while Composing Together on Computers. CIERA Report. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
76. Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R. (2001). Evaluation of a laptop program: Successes and recommendations. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference Proceedings (22nd, Chicago, IL, June 25-27, 2001).
77. Lund, D. M. & Hildreth, D. (1997, December). Integrating the computer into language arts in a fifth grade classroom: A Developing instructional model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference.
78. MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S.S. (1994). Peers + word processing + strategies = a powerful combination for revising student writing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 24-29.
79. MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 344-354.
80. McBee, D. (1994). The Effect of technology on emergent writing. Research project, Juneau, AK: University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau.
81. McMillan, K. & Honey, M. (1993). Year One of Project Pulse: Pupils Using Laptops in Science and English. A Final Report. Technical Report No. 26. New York, NY: Center for Technology in Education.
82. Market Data Retrieval. (1999). Technology in education 1999. Shelton, CT: Market Data Retrieval.
83. Mead, A. D. & Drasgow, (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-andpencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114:3, 449-58.
84. Mehdi, S. N. (1994). Word processing and the EFL writing classroom: A case study of arabic speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston.
85. Moeller, B., Bell, L. & Reich, C. (1993, March). Using networked technology to create new writing environments for deaf students: Teachers' strategies and student outcomes. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in New Orleans, LA.
86. Moher, D. & Olkin, I. (1995). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: A concern for standards. Journal of the American Medical Association, 274, 1962-1963.
87. Mott, M.S. & Halpin, R. (1999). A comparative approach to the examination of the technical qualities of a pen and paper writing assessment for elementary students' hypermedia-created products. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23, 1999.
88. Mott, M. S., Sumrall, W. J., & Hodges, M. L. (1997, November). Process and computer-based elementary writing curriculum: a review of methods and assessments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN.
89. Mott, M. S. & Klomes, J. M. (2001). The synthesis of writing workshop and hypermedia-authoring: Grades 1-4. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 3(2).
90. Moxley, R. A., Warash, B., Coffman, G., Brinton, K., & Concannon, K. R. (1994). Computer writing development in a prekindergarten class of 4 year olds. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(2), 211-229.
91. Moxley, R. A., Warash, B., Coffman, G., Brinton, K., & Concannon, K. R. (1997). Writing development using computers in a class of three-year-olds. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(2), 133-164.
92. Nichols, L. M. (1996). Pencil and paper versus word processing: a comparative study of creative writing in the elementary school. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 159-166.
93. Olson, K. A. (1994). Writing and Revising with Pencils and with Computers: An Analysis of the Processes and Products of Seven First-Grade Children. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
94. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal for Educational Statistics, 8, 157-159.
95. Osborne, P. (1999). Pilot study to investigate the performance of dyslexic students in written assessments. Innovations in Education and Training International; 36(2), 155-60.
96. Owston, R. D. (1991). Effects of word processing on student writing in a highcomputer-access environment (Technical Report 91-3). North York, Ontario: York University, Centre for the Study of Computers in Education.
97. Owston, R. D., Murphy, S., & Wideman H. H. (1992). The effects of word processing on students' writing quality and revision strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(3), 249-276.
98. Owston, R. D. & Wideman, H. H. (1997). Word processors and children's writing in a high-computer-access setting. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 202-220.
99. Padgett, A. L. (2000). Journal writing in the elementary school: Word processor vs. Paper and pencil. Unpublished master's of arts thesis, Johnson Bible College, Knoxville.
100. Peacock, M. & Beard, R. (1997). "Almost an invincible repugnance?": Word processors and pupil writers. Educational Review, 49(3), 283-294.
101. Pennington, M. C. (1993). Exploring the potential of word processing for nonnative writers. Computers and the Humanities, 27(3), 149-163.
102. Peterson, S. E. (1993). A comparison of student revisions when composing with pen and paper versus word-processing. Computers in the Schools, 9(4), 55-69.
103. Philips, D. (1995). Study 6: Using the word processor to develop skills of written expression. Final report. Evaluation of exploratory studies in educational computing. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
104. Phoenix, J. & Hannan, E. (1984). Word processing in the grade 1 classroom. Language Arts, 61(8), 804-812.
105. Pisapia, J. R., Knutson, K., & Coukos, E. D. (1999, November). The Impact of computers on student performance and teacher behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Deerfield Beach, FL.
106. Pohl, V. & Groome, D. (1994). Happy hands: Pre-keyboarding facility for emergent writers. The Computing Teacher, 21(5), 16-18.
107. Priest, N. B. (1995). Developing writing skills of fourth grade students using a variety of intervention strategies. M.S. Practicum, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.
108. Reed, W. M. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based writing instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 418-437.
109. Robertson, I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O'Shea, T., & Lambrechts, G. (1996). Pupils, teachers, & palmtop computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(4), 194-204.
110. Roussey, J. Y., Farioli, F., & Piolat, A. (1992). Effects of social regulation and computer assistance on the monitoring of writing. European Journal of Psychology of Education; 7(4), 295-309.
111. Roblyer, M. D. (1997). Technology and the oops! effect: Finding a bias against word processing. Learning and Leading with Technology, 24(7), 14-16.
112. Russell, M., Bebell, D., & O'Dwyer, L. (2003) Use, support, and effect of instructional technology study: An overview of the USEIT study and the participating districts. Boston, MA: Boston College, Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative.
113. 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.
114. Shadish, W.R. & Haddock, C.K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H.M. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 261-281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
115. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
116. Shaw, E.L., Nauman, A.K., & Burson, D. (1994). Comparison of spontaneous and word processed compositions in elementary classrooms: A three-year study. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(3), 319-327.
117. Sitko, M.C. & Crealock, C. M. (1986, June). A longitudinal study of the efficacy of computer technology for improving the writing skills of mildly handicapped adolescents. Paper presented at at the Invitational Research Symposium on Special Education Technology, Washington, DC.
118. Snyder, I. (1993a). 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 Journal of Education, 37(1), 5-25.
119. Snyder, I. (1993b). Writing with word processors: A research overview. Educational Research, 35(1), 49-68.
120. Snyder, I. (1994). Writing with word processors: The computer's influence on the classroom context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(2), 143-162.
121. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2002). A Nation Online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/ nationonline_020502.htm.
122. Vacc, N. N. (1987). Word processor versus handwriting: A comparative study of writing samples produced by mildly mentally handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54(2), 156-165.
123. Waldman, H. (1995). The effects of a multimedia literacy tool on first grade reading and writing achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of San Francisco, San Francisco.
124. Walker, C. L. (1997). Computers, revision, and the developmental writer: A case study of on-screen versus off-screen revision processes. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 14(1), 23-34.
125. Williamson, M. L. & Pence, P. (1989). Word processing and student writers. In B. K. Briten & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design (pp. 96-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
126. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
127. Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Bangert, A.W. (1996). A study of word processing experience and its effects on student essay writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 269-283.
128. Yackanicz, L. (2000). Reluctant writers and writing-prompt software. Unpublished master's thesis, Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia.
129. Zammuner, V. L. (1995). Individual and cooperative computer-writing and revising: Who gets the best results? Learning and Instruction, 5(2), 101-124.
130. Zhang, Y., Brooks, D.W., Frields, T., & Redelfs, M. (1995). Quality of writing by elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(4), 483-499.
131. Zoni, S. J. (1992). Improving process writing skills of seventh grade at-risk students by increasing interest through the use of the microcomputer, word processing software, and telecommunications technology. Unpublished practicum paper, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.