| dc.description.abstract | Improvement of written communication skill is a major goal of
many American educators today. This quasi-experimental study,
conducted in six sixth-grade reading classes, evaluated and
compared the effectiveness of three approaches to improving
writing in the reading classroom and examined the students'
attitudes toward writing. Independent variables were method of
treatment, language level of students, and home language of
students. Dependent variables were writing achievement, scored
holistically and analytically, and attitude toward writing.
All classes were taught by the same teacher, received the
same instruction, and completed two writing assignments each week
for six weeks. The six classes were divided into three treatment
groups: WP+ (using a spell and grammar checker-enhanced word
processing software program), WP (using the same software
program without the checker options), and P&P (using pen and paper).
Prior to implementation of the study, each student completed an
attitude survey and wrote a descriptive paragraph that was used as
a pretest. After six weeks of treatment, students wrote two
posttest essays-one with the treatment used in the study, and the
other handwritten-and completed the attitude survey. Interviews
with students explored their attitudes, with emphasis on whether students preferred writing with paper or computer, and why.
Student comments are included in the Appendix.
All student writing was evaluated after the conclusion of the
study. Handwritten pretests and posttests were typed into the
computer, reproducing all student work exactly, to assure that all
papers would be treated equally. Results of the writing and the
attitude surveys were analyzed by analysis of covariance, using
pretest writing scores as covariate (to compensate for any
differences resulting from the need to use intact classes).
Five null hypotheses were investigated; two were rejected and
three were retained. Significant differences attributable to
treatment were determined between students using enhanced word
processors and those using pen and paper, and English home language
students and those from bilingual home backgrounds. Areas where
there was no indication of treatment effects were writing
achievement of low-language ability students and those who were
not low, and student attitudes toward writing. | |
