MARTHA Beginning to write with word processing: …wratchuk/9so.pdfCHARLENE A. VAN LEEUWEN MARTHA A. GABRIEL Beginning to write with word processing: Integrating writing process and

CHARLENE A. VAN LEEUWENMARTHA A. GABRIEL

Beginning to write with word processing:

Integrating writing process andtechnology in a primary classroom

fStechnology becomes ubiquitous,

teachers can support students' writing

development in new ways.

n a state of organized chaos, students returnfrom their outdoor recess, grab their snacks,and retrieve their notebooks and pencils for

writing workshop. One student approaches theteacher asking, "Whose turn is it to use the com-puters?" Although Sarah (all names are pseudo-nyms) is disappointed that it is not her turn today,she quickly finds Alex, one of the students chosento work with the word processor, and shares thegood news with him. This information galvanizesAlex into action as he packs his remaining snackaway and darts over to the computer corner, anx-ious to begin his new piece of writing.

This scene might occur in many elementaryschools throughout North America today. As feder-al, state, and provincial governments providesubstantial monies for placement of computer tech-nologies in schools, the question remains how bestto use this resource in the context of 21 st-centuryclassrooms. The purpose of this article is to exploreone focused use of these computer technologies and,in particular, to describe the writing behaviorsdemonstrated by a group of grade 1 students whoused 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, 2007 International Reading Associa

technologies with continual searches for effectiveteaching and learning strategies to meet the needs of21 st-century learners (Leu, 2001; McKenzie, 2000;Turbill, 2002). The integration of the new literaciesof information and communication technologies(ICTs) and the curriculum has become a goal for lit-eracy 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 theclassroom level includes the use of word proces-sors as tools supporting the writing process, the fo-cus of this study.

Sociocultural theories of literacy recognize andacknowledge the importance of the social contextalong with the background experience and skillsof students (Bruner, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). Muchof the research on writing, computers, and youngchildren is grounded in the work of these social andcultural theories of language and classroom inter-action (Bigge & Shermis, 1999; Cochran-Smith,1991; Daiute, 1988). Research has demonstratedthat communication patterns among students inclassrooms change when word processors are in-troduced as writing tools (Dickinson, 1986; Fisher,1994; Kumpulainen, 1994; Shilling, 1997). Leu(2002) has pointed out that literacy learning has be-come increasingly social as technologies and class-rooms are integrated. Using a word processor mayfacilitate meaning making as students and teachersinteract within the context of a process writing ap-proach. Student talk and reflection can facilitatesharing and construction of knowledge in a socialsetting such as a primary classroom.

tion (pp. 420-429) doi:10.1598/RT.60,5.2

There are effects on educators as well.Teachers' philosophy, pedagogy, and instructionalpractices with regard to ICT use directly influenceoutcomes (Russell, Bebell, Cowan, & Corbelli,2002). If there is a shift to a more collaborative ap-proach in the environment of a classroom, then therole of the teacher supporting the writing process isalso transformed (Cochran-Smith, Paris, & Kahn,1991; Mercer & Fisher, 1992). The teacher be-comes facilitator, guide, and participant in a learn-ing community when engaged in computer-basedactivities (Labbo, 2004; Snyder, 1993). Evengreater transformations of the role of classroomteachers may be emerging. Although Cuban (2001)argued that despite increased access to ICTs, mean-ingful changes in the instructional practices ofteachers have not occurred, Leu, Karchmer, andLeu (1999) proposed that "just as new technologieschange literacy, literacy also changes new tech-nologies within a transactional relationship" (p.638). These researchers suggested that in order tokeep pace with the changing role of technologies inliteracy classrooms, reflective teachers will in-creasingly determine and share effective ICT inte-gration in the classroom.

Integrating ICTs frequently requires modifica-tion of teaching strategies employed by educators.The use of computers not only affects classroom cul-ture and the social interactions of students and teach-ers, but also it introduces a new technology (Baker,2000; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 2000). Theuse of a different tool-a computer with word-processing software-to complete a task traditional-ly completed with pencil and paper introduces a newrealm of possible differences in attitudes, interac-tions, instructional strategies, and written products(Wood, 2000). In doing so, use of a new tool raisesquestions with regard to best practices for students atall levels of writing development.

This case study sought to examine the impactthat different writing tools had on the writing of be-ginning writers in the primary grades. The studyfocused on a class of grade 1 students, includingaspects such as the physical environment, class-room culture, instructional goals of the teacher, in-teractions among students, teacher-studentinteractions, and the development of student writ-ing while using a word processor. This work is acomponent of a larger study that included studentsfrom three primary classrooms (grades 1-3).

MethodsThis research was conducted in a grade 1 class

in a rural school in a province on the east coast ofCanada. The purpose of the case study (Stake,1994) was to develop greater understanding of themultiple factors involved in the use of word pro-cessing by beginning writers, as well as the effectof integrating ICTs on the classroom environmentand on the teacher. The first author (Van Leeuwen)spent hours observing in the classroom, examin-ing variations in student writing behavior, the class-room culture, and communication about writingprojects (Patton, 2002). Six boys and seven girlsin grade 1 participated in this study; all of them hadprevious computerbxperience either at home orthrough their kindergarten program.

Data collection and analysisInformation was collected from classroom ob-

servations, informal conversations with the teacherduring field visits, interviews with students and theteacher, and student writing samples (Marshall &Rossman, 1999). Observation sessions and inter-views were audiotaped and transcribed to captureoral-language interactions of students with peers,the teacher, and the researcher.

Classroom visits occurred every three weeksthroughout the school year for 40 to 90 minutes pervisit. Students were observed to see how they usedthe two writing media, word processing or penciland paper. During classroom visits, samples ofhandwritten and word-processed texts produced bythe children were collected, and informal conversa-tions were held with the teacher. Short interviews,lasting about 10 minutes, were conducted with fourstudents to further explore their approaches to writ-ing with the two media. These four students wererepresentative of a range of characteristics such asgender, kindergarten attendance, and computer ex-perience. Students were asked how they preparedto write, where they found their ideas for writing,and whom they approached for help. Field noteswritten after each visit captured as many of the ac-tivities and actions of the students in the classroomas possible.

The perspective of the classroom teacher wasexplored through informal conversations duringfield visits and through a semistructured interview.

Beginning to write with word processing

600

0

Topics discussed in the interview included the fol-lowing:

"• aspects of student behavior,

"• qualities of student interactions,

"• observations of students during writingsessions,

"• professional experiences, and

"* the teacher's approaches to writing andtechnology.

The field notes were annotated to compile in-formation from the notes, audiotapes, and writingsamples. Student writing samples were collectedand assessed using criteria developed by AlbertaEducation, Student Evaluation Branch (1997). Thisinformation was coded by one coder, using themesidentified in the literature such as attitudes towardwriting and the teacher's writing instruction(Clements, 1987; Cochran-Smith et al., 1991;Mercer & Fisher, 1992) as well as emergingthemes. Emerging themes included interactionswith peers, skill transfer, and classroom dynamics.An iterative coding process was used until all an-notated notes were reviewed and coded (Miles &Huberman, 1994).

The grade 1 classIn Robin Neville's grade 1 classroom, stu-

dents' desks were arranged in small groups in thecenter. Around the periphery of the room were amusic corner with piano, chairs, and couch; theteacher's work area and desk; low shelving filledwith children's books, math manipulatives, andother art supplies; and the computer corner. Thethree computers in the classroom were older Applemachines. In contrast, the school's computer labcontained 18 new computers, with 3 other comput-ers located outside the lab in the nearby resourcecenter.

The culture in Robin's classroom reflected afocus on productive and enthusiastic activity.Helping her grade 1 students become readers andwriters was a high priority. Children were involveddaily in a process writing approach as they workedon prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and pub-lishing the various texts they produced.Expectations were clearly communicated at the

start of writing time and were reviewed at the end.During writing workshop, three students in theclass were allowed to work at the computers for theduration of the session. The entire class rotatedthrough these three computers, so that each childwrote using a word processor every one and one-half weeks.

Technology and teaching experiencesRobin frequently encouraged students who

made a discovery on the computer to extend theirunderstanding of that discovery. The following ex-change is one example:

Robin: I want you to put your name "Nicholas" inbetween 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 thethings that it can do. He begins to experiment. Robinnotices and encourages him to try a few things. Theteacher then asks him to use this newfound option inanother sentence. (Observation notes)

Students were encouraged to experiment and dis-cover things for themselves in this classroom. Theywere also asked to apply what they had discoveredto other circumstances. Problem solving and re-sponsibility were qualities this teacher sought todevelop in students.

Teaching experiences play a significant role inwhat goes on within a classroom, and experienceswith technology are no exception. Robin's ap-proach to integrating ICTs and process writing wasconstantly changing and evolving:

This is my fourth year teaching grade 1 and as eachyear goes by I'm surprised how quickly they catch on totechnology...when it comes to writing I think time spentin the lab or developing skills with individuals in theclassroom [is time well spent].... Some kids actuallywrite better on a computer or...compose faster using akeyboard than pen and paper.... So my use [of] com-puters is probably expanding as I go along with grade1. (Teacher interview)

Robin believed that integrating ICTs was importantfor students and brought old computers in fromhome to set up in the classroom. These providedthe opportunity for grade 1 students to have consis-

oOO SThe Reading Teacher Vol. 60, No. 5 February 2007

tent access to a word processor to support theirwriting.

Findings

Student attitudes toward writinqand computers

For the most part, students' attitudes toward thewriting they did in their classroom were positive.When engaged in writing tasks students were gen-erally focused. They were enthusiastic writers bothon and off the computer. Students were often ob-served counting the number of sentences they hadwritten. Their body language demonstrated excite-ment with their progress. Students' enthusiasm toshare their finished work (both handwritten andcomputer generated) was equally intense.

Robin placed a high value on writing andfound that students in the class were very motivat-ed when involved in writing. She described howstudents spoke about writing: Are we having writ-ing time today? When is our writing time? Can wego into the computer lab, to finish up a story? Can Ishare it with the class? Using the computers wassomething the students enjoyed. Robin said that"even with the ancient technology in my room,there's still.. .novelty in.. .using the computer towrite" (Teacher interview).

Of the four students interviewed about theirwriting tool preference for composing the first draftof a story, three indicated their preference was for aword processor, and one student preferred to usepaper and pencil. Students expressed their concernwith the mechanics of writing and the efforts in-volved with letter formation, spelling words, typingon the computer, and creating pictures to illustratetheir story. This is expressed in the followingconversation:

Researcher: Why do you like the computer more?Nicholas: Because, like, we don't have to draw the

shapes, all you have to do is just press thebuttons.

Researcher: Now, when you say "draw the shapes," doyou mean making the shape of the letter?

Nicholas: Yeah. (Observation notes)

The effort involved in writing with paper and pen-cil was a major challenge; students spoke of their

hands tiring when they wrote that way. In contrast,students enjoyed hunting for letters on the key-board. Classroom observations confirmed students'stated preferences related to different writingtools-pencil and paper or keyboard-when com-posing a story.

Teacher instructionRobin indicated that developing keyboarding

skills and some familiarity with basic word-processing functions were among the primarygoals for word-processor use in this classroom. Toaccomplish this, a variety of instructional strategieswere used, such as

* encouraging students to continue their efforts,"* helping students focus on the important de-

tails, and

"* supporting students as they developedproblem-solving strategies.

Most writing skill instruction was a mixture oflarge-group teaching, followed by individualstudent-teacher conferences focused on a piece ofthe student's writing. In contrast, instruction inword-processing skills was approached different-ly. Large-group lessons were not often used. Word-processing instruction was frequently embeddedin lessons designed to teach both writing and word-processing skills, followed by an opportunity forpractice. The following is from a lesson on capitalletters and punctuation, and it provides a sense ofhow this was accomplished:

Robin has students sit on the floor near a monitor sothat they all can see what is happening. A group les-son on capital letters and punctuation is the focus. Afile with the "daily message" is called up. Students areinstructed to read the message and then correct themissing capital letters and punctuation. Robin demon-strates several ways to make capital letters. Two stu-dents are asked to help demonstrate the tasks, andthey come over to the keyboard to do this.(Observation notes)

Often word-processing instruction took theform of short minilessons slipped into the mid-dle of a writing session. Minilessons were notoften planned in advance of the session. Theywere a response to student questions or emerg-ing student needs, or they were presented when

Beginning to write with word processing

@00

0

4

Robin wished to share strategies helpful for the to do soientire class. While circulating to observe stu- questiondents' writing, Robin provided advice or guid- Robance on writing skills or conventions to cemingindividual students. This one-to-one coaching computwas extended to include word-processing func- ences, sttions when students wrote with word processors. to their v

Another aspect of instruction was the writing ventionsconference. While Robin conducted writing con- pointedferences with individual students in the classroom, tions inthis was not the situation in the computer lab. In the much aticomputer lab, students requiring help with word- dependeprocessing functions or hardware problems were differencompeting with students who needed guidance el of conabout their writing. Conferences in the lab gener- Theally took place at the computer, were of shorter du- revisionration, and were focused on smaller segments of read thetext. Students

they hacInteractions doing th

Interactions between teacher and students, andamong students themselves, occurred frequently Writingin the writing process classroom, as well as in the Stuccomputer lab. The audiotapes from many of the ob- pencil orservation sessions revealed the constant hum from differencconversation when students were writing. There readingwere differences observed in the amount of talk their wr:among students depending on where they were workingwriting; the amount of talk in the computer lab was quentlyconsistently higher than in the classroom, longer ti

Students were blatant eavesdroppers. Many Almosttimes they would enter into an interaction by vol- seemedunteering information or assistance: after 10

posing nKayla looks at me and asks, "How do you spell once?" Reap i

I ask her how it would start and she says "0-U-C."Maria, sitting at the next computer listening to our con- peared tversation says, "I know how to spell it." She points to of whather screen. Kayla scoots around the computer table to opmentsee how to spell once. She returns then to her com- rereadinputer and resumes typing. (Observation notes) typed ar

used. ReThese interactions may also have begun with stu- word pn

dents narrating their own actions as they were faced contrast,with a task on the computer. Something that fre- vealed Iquently emerged from these exchanges between stu- piece ofdents was the discovery of another word-processor ing com1function. In this way, students became peer coaches. WheIt did not matter who taught the students a skill- to write,teacher or peer. If the children wanted to know how Some st

C424 The Reading Teacher Vol. 60, No. 5 February 2007

nething, they were satisfied as long as theirwas answered.in constantly interacted with students con-their writing in the classroom and in the-r lab. Aside from regular editing confer-te helped students with a variety of revisionsvork. The focus tended to be on writing con-and skills taught to the class. Robin also

out differences in student-teacher interac-the computer lab; students did not need astention and developed skills in working in-ntly. Robin speculated that these observedces might be the result of students' high lev-centration on typing words.last form of interaction occurred with theof computer-based writing, when studentstext displayed on a classmate's monitor.sometimes offered comments on writing

Ijust read. Students were never observedis with a classmate's handwritten work.

behaviorslents' writing behaviors using paper andword processing revealed some intriguing

-es in the amount of focused writing time,and rereading behaviors, and planning ofiting. Students with strong writing skillsin a notebook with a pencil were fre-

able to sustain their focus on a writing taskhan when they worked on the computer.all students with poorer keyboarding skillsto slow down in terms of text productionor 15 minutes, whether students were com-ew pieces or transcribing their writing.ding and rereading handwritten work ap-o be for reflection and for determinationshould come next regarding story devel-and content. On the computer, reading andg was for assessment of what students hadid of whether the correct keys had beenreading appeared more frequently duringocessing and occurred in short bursts. Instudents reviewing handwritten work re-

onger, more sustained rereading of theirwriting. This was particularly obvious dur-osition of a first draft.

,n students were asked how they preparedthey reported using a variety of strategies.ated that they first prepared their writing

tools. Others reported that "thinking" was theirstarting point. Some students read or reread a bookthey had enjoyed in preparation for writing, andothers sat down to consider which of their person-al experiences they wanted to write about. All ofthese strategies were used in the classroom duringtraditional writing process sessions, but fewerstrategies were used when beginning to write witha word processor.

Writinq sample analysisThe quality of each of the writing samples was

assessed on three criteria-ideas and order, wordsand sentences, and conventions of language.Analysis of the writing samples revealed that wordprocessors did not reduce the quality of writing ofthese grade 1 students; that is, word-processed andhandwritten pieces were of similar quality.However, there was a difference in the length of thetexts. Writing samples composed with pencil andpaper were generally longer than those composedwith a word processor. There was a range from 73to 305 words and a mean of 163 words for hand-written work, compared with 37 to 116 words anda mean of 71 words for pieces composed with aword processor.

Discussion

Teacher instructionAs the integrated use of computers becomes

more commonplace in primary-grade curricula, de-veloping a greater understanding of the comput-er's impact on instruction is increasingly important.Tailoring writing instruction to the context is an im-portant aspect of effective instruction (Cochran-Smith et al., 1991; Mercer & Fisher, 1992;Sandholtz et al., 2000; Snyder, 1993). One chal-lenge of group lessons in the computer lab stemsfrom the students' desire to begin to use the com-puters. They are not easily engaged by a demon-stration lesson that is not hands-on for them.Lesson timing may need to be a more importantconsideration based on the finding that almost allstudents with poor keyboarding skills started slow-ing in their production of text after 10 or 15 min-utes. If students start to lose focus, teachers needto consider different ways to break up keyboard-

ing time so the final portion of the writing periodis used effectively. The midpoint of a writing ses-sion with word processors may be better timing fora minilesson than at the beginning, when studentsare eager to use the computers.

Classroom InteractionsThe types of interactions observed, comments

by the teacher, and responses drawn from the studentinterviews reveal the power and frequency of peerinteractions. Observations revealed that students re-lied on one another for help with spelling and wordprocessing functions. This is similar to findings byLabbo (2004); Lomangino, Nicholson, and Sulzby(1999); and Philips (1995). The help that studentsprovide one another redirects some of the demandson the teacher's attention, enabling the teacher tofocus on higher-level questions and problems. Suchhelp also enhances students' problem-solving skills.Most help provided by students to their peers wasin the form of direction and generally did not incor-porate explanation. This confirms the importance ofpeer interactions while recognizing the limitations ofsuch assistance.

Classroom observations revealed that theteacher was more tolerant of student talk in thecomputer lab setting. Increased talk among peerssuggests that teachers need to accept a greater de-gree of interaction in a computer lab. This in-creased tolerance of student interactions whileusing the computer may have encouraged studentsto help their peers. Some research into collabora-tive writing has found improvements in the qualityof writing when students engage in metacognitivetalk about their text (Dickinson, 1986; Jones &Pellegrini, 1996). This suggests the possibility thatallowing greater task-related interaction amongstudents when they are writing with word proces-sors may result in improved writing quality.

The one-on-one interaction of a writing con-ference was different when conducted in a comput-er lab as compared to the classroom. Content wasdifferent because various word-processing skillsor keyboard issues were frequently addressed.Conferences were shorter in the computer lab be-cause the teacher and student did not work throughthe entire text in one sitting but addressed one ortwo issues, and then the student returned to writing.This may be due to challenges in redirecting the

Beginning to write with word processing0

SSOos

student's attention from the computer to the text. stories s1This could also be the result of students' demands puters.for speedy assistance with word-processor-related would rafunctions in order to continue with their writing Writtask. lab migh

Writing conferences generally took place at the of concestudent's computer workstation where constraints explanatiof the physical environment may have played a be that strole. The teacher and student did not move to a sep- ronment,arate table or area of the room to signal to others on the ccthat a writing conference was in progress. This potentialseemed to give other students greater license to in- with theterrupt the conference, given the more diverse de- volved wmands for assistance in the computer lab. The have beephysical effects of standing bent over a computer cause thscreen for several minutes to conduct a writing studentsconference may also have an impact. at work '

one anot]

Writing behaviors the teact

In this study, observations of students writing changes.

with computers reveal that they rarely create a sto- Cochran

ry web or plan. One reason for this may be that (1996),

making changes with a word processor is easier,and writers count on the revision process to refinetheir work. Previous research has not determined Considhow reduced planning affects the quality of grade 1 pract!students' stories. There has been speculation that A nuwriters compensate for this reduction in planning tice emeiby reading and rereading their work (Haas, 1989). integratiThe current study did find differences in the read- gram, teiing behavior of participants when composing, withshort, more frequent reading of word-processed Detext. This shift in reading patterns was also found in mea study of slightly older students in Australia pro(Sutherland-Smith, 2002). to i

Frustration and reluctance were more frequent- woly observed in students when they were transcrib- dreing, a less interesting task compared to composing. FacThis is also a finding in studies with older students tioi(Cochran-Smith et al., 1991; Mumtaz, 2001; toSeawel, Smaldino, Steele, & Lewis, 1994). The shckeyboarding skills of younger students did not ap- • Plapear to interfere with their composing because very Te•beginning writers have a slower composing and in- tioiscribing rhythm (Cochran-Smith et al.). Incorrect carfinger positioning did not seem to impede students' prcsuccess or enthusiasm in using a keyboard, an ob- Wcservation also noted by Gemmell (2003). Even stu- ofdents who expressed a preference for handwriting wr

(42 The Reading Teacher Vol. 60, No. 5 February 2007

till had strong interest in using the com-qo participant ever said that he or shether not use the computer.ing behaviors observed in the computert also result from students' differing levelsntration when typing words. Alternativeons for these differences in behavior mayudents are more autonomous in this envi-or more motivated to try invented spelling

imputer because editing is easier. Anotherexplanation is that they are more absorbedtechnology and, as a result, are less in-

tith the adults around them. Students mayn helping one another more frequently be-ere was a higher tolerance of talk amongin the lab. The combination of influencesvithin the environment and how they shapeher, and the understanding and practices ofler, are likely the source of the observed• This finding is in agreement with-Smith et al. (1991), Jones and Pellegrinimd Snyder (1994).

lerations for classroom;eeimber of implications for classroom prac-rged from the findings of this study. Whenng word processing and the writing pro-ichers should consider the following:

velop realistic expectations when imple-nting a word-processing component in thecess writing program. When teachers planntegrate word processing and their writingrkshop, a number of questions must be ad-ssed. What role will the teacher play?:ilitator, guide, or provider of direct instruc-i? When should keyboarding be introducedchildren? What word-processing skills9uld be introduced to grade 1 students?

n to adjust current instructional strategies.ichers need to develop and adjust instruc-nal strategies in order to assist students inTying out all aspects of the writingcess, from prewriting to final revisions.rking with the technology brings a new setdecisions that must be made: Who willite with the word processor today? How

much work will students do in pairs?Individually? How much peer mentoring willbe allowed? Will students be encouraged toassist their peers?

" Schedule feedback times for students. Writingconferences play a critical role in the writers'workshop. Teachers must consider how to en-sure that appropriate feedback is given to stu-dents when they write with a word processor.Will writing conferences happen at computerterminals? At a table away from the bank ofcomputers? Will teacher and student be ableto sit down together? Should the student printthe piece of writing to be discussed?

"* Be prepared for students to focus on the com-puters, not on a lesson, in the computer lab.In-class preparations before going to thecomputer lab may need to take on a new fo-cus to address the students' impatience to be-gin using computers as soon as they arrive.Teachers could give students minimal in-struction before leaving the classroom and letthem begin working on the computers imme-diately. A lesson could then be timed to pro-vide a break for students from keyboardingwhen those with weaker skills begin to losetheir focus, probably at the 10- to 15-minutemark.

- Teach students skills in working collabora-tively. Peer teaching can be a powerful tool;however, students need instruction in how towork effectively with one another. What roleswill students assume? Which team membershould find the next letter? Who could workon checking the spelling? Would peer helpbe more effective if the peer teacher dictatedthe next letter or word?

SummaryThis study affords an exploration of how be-

ginning writers learn to write using different in-struments, and it also provides further informationabout the relationships among students, teachers,the writing process, and the use of word proces-sors as tools. The dynamic interplay of influenceson classroom culture and on the interactions amongindividuals within a grade 1 classroom is described.

From the observations in this study, it is clear thatno one composing tool is able to serve all the needsof beginning writers. Word processors are tools thatcan complement the range and type of writing ac-tivities in elementary school classrooms. The lead-ership role played by the classroom teacher inimplementing word processing in the writing cur-riculum is a critical component in determining thefelicitous use of this tool.

Van Leeuwen teaches at the University ofPrince Edward Island in Canada. Gabrielteaches at the same university. She may becontacted there (550 University Avenue,Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, CIA 4P3,Canada). E-mail mqabriel®upeI.ca.

ReferencesAlberta Education, Student Evaluation Branch. (1997).

Classroom assessment materials project (CAMP) grades1 & 2. Edmonton, AB: Education Advantage.

Baker, E.A. (2000). Instructional approaches used to inte-grate literacy and technology. Reading Online. RetrievedAugust 15, 2006, from http://www.readingonline.orglarticles/art-index.asp?HREF=baker

Bigge, M.L., & Shermis, S.S. (1999). Learning theories forteachers (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 inelementary classrooms: A critical review of related lit-erature. Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 107-155.

Cochran-Smith, M., Paris, C.L., & Kahn, J.L. (1991). Learningto write differently: Beginning writers and word process-ing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers inthe classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Daiute, C. (1988). The early development of writing abili-ties: 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 acomputer: Integrating a computer into a first-secondgrade writing program. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 20, 357-378.

Fisher, E. (1994). Joint composition at the computer:Learning to talk about writing. Computers andComposition, 11, 251-262.

Gemmell, S. (2003). A study of keyboarding instruction andthe acquisition of word processing skills. (ERIC Document

Beginning to write with word processing 40

go0

Reproduction Service No. ED477756). Unpublished mas-ter's thesis, Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, PA.

Haas, C. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writ-ing process: Effects of word processing on planning.Research in the Teaching of English, 23,181-207.

International Reading Association. (2001). Integrating litera-cy and technology in the curriculum (Position statement).Newark, DE: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2006, fromhttp://www.readinq.org/downloads/positions/ps1048.technology.pdf

International Reading Association & National Council ofTeachers of English. (1996). Standards for the Englishlanguage 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 educational technology 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 re-lationships, writing media, and microgenetic develop-ment on first-grade students' written narratives.American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 691-718.

Kinzer, C.K. (2003). The importance of recognizing the ex-panding boundaries of literacy. Reading Online. RetrievedSeptember 11, 2006, from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=kinzer

Kumpulainen, K. (1994). Collaborative writing with comput-ers and children's talk: A cross-cultural study. Computersand Composition, 11, 263-273.

Labbo, L.D. (2004). Author's computer chair. The ReadingTeacher, 57, 688-691.

Leu, D.J., Jr. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students fornew literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher,54, 568-572. Retrieved September 6, 2006, fromhttp://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec-ndex.as,?HREF=rt/3-01 column/index.html

Leu, D.J., Jr. (2002). Internet workshop: Making time forliteracy. The Reading Teacher, 55, 466-472. RetrievedSeptember 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 MissRumphius effect: Envisionments for literacy and learningthat transform the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 52,636-642. Retrieved September 6, 2006, fromhttp://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec-index.asp?HREF=rt/rumphius.html

Lomangino, A.G., Nicholson, J., & Sulzby, E. (1999). The na-ture of children's interactions while composing togetheron computers (CIERA Report #2-005). Ann Arbor, Mh:Center for the Improvement of Early ReadingAchievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED447477)

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitativeresearch (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McKenzie, J. (2000). Beyond technology: Questioning, re-search, and the information literate school. Bellingham,WA: FNO.

Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1992). How do teachers help chil-dren to learn? An analysis of teachers' interventions incomputer-based activities. Learning and Instruction, 2,339-355.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analy-sis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children's enjoyment and perception ofcomputer use in the home and the school. Computers &Education, 36, 347-362.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluationmethods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Philips, D. (1995). Evaluation of exploratory studies in edu-cational computing. Study 6: Using the word processor todevelop skills of written expression. Final report. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED387820)

Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., & Corbelli, M. (2002). AnAlphaSmart for each student: Does teaching and learningchange with full access to word processors? Paper pre-sented at the 23rd National Educational ComputingConference, San Antonio, Texas. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED475950)

Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (2000). The evo-lution of instruction in technology-rich classrooms. In R.Pea (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on technology andlearning (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 wordprocessing and handwriting on attitudes and perform-ance of third and fourth grade students involved in a pro-gram based on a process approach to writing. Journalof Computing in Childhood Education, 5(1), 43-59.

Shilling, W.A. (1997). Young children using computers tomake discoveries about written language. EarlyChildhood Education Journal, 24, 253-259.

Snyder, I. (1993). The impact of computers on students' writ-ing: A comparative study of the effects of pens and wordprocessors on writing context, process and product.Australian Journal of Education, 37(1), 5-25.

Snyder, I. (1994). Writing with word processors: The com-puter's influence on the classroom context. Journal ofCurriculum 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 ReadingTeacher, 55, 662-669.

Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy andpedagogy: A framework for examining theory and prac-tice. Reading Online. Retrieved September 6, 2006, fromhttp://www.readingonline.orgrJnteernational]inter-

index.asp?H REF=turbill4/index.html

. (.• The Reading Teacher Vol. 60, No. 5 February 2007

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development ofhigher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner,S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published1934)

Wood, J.M. (2000). A marriage waiting to happen:Computers and process writing. Boston: EducationDevelopment Center. Retrieved September 6, 2006,from http://www.edtechleaders.org/Resources/Readings/UpperElemLiteracy/Wood ComputersWriting.htm

Bring engaging literacy instruction into your classroom withReadWriteThink.org!

Discover ReadWriteThink's rich collection of materials for teaching reading and languagearts in grades K-12, including research-based lesson plans, interactive online activities for

students, and a calendar of significant literary events-all available online for free.

- eRsur7e

;9 -Newark, DE 19714-8139 -800-336-323 -302-731-1600 - www.readinq.orq

Beginning to write with word processing 029•

I Less I Standards I I Student Materials I

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Beginning to write with word processing: Integratingwriting process an

SOURCE: The Reading Teacher 60 no5 F 2007PAGE(S): 420-9

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.reading.org/