TY - JOUR
T1 - Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers
T2 - A meta-analysis of research findings
AU - Morphy, Paul
AU - Graham, Steve
N1 - Funding Information:
Paul Morphy’s work was supported by Vanderbilt’s Experimental Education Research Training (ExpERT) grant. (David S. Cordray, Director; grant number R305B040110). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the US Department of Education.
PY - 2012/3
Y1 - 2012/3
N2 - Since its advent word processing has become a common writing tool, providing potential advantages over writing by hand. Word processors permit easy revision, produce legible characters quickly, and may provide additional supports (e.g., spellcheckers, speech recognition). Such advantages should remedy common difficulties among weaker writers/readers in grades 1-12. Based on 27 studies with weaker writers, 20 of which were not considered in prior reviews, findings from this meta-analysis support this proposition. From 77 independent effects, the following average effects were greater than zero: writing quality (d = 0.52), length (d = 0.48), development/organization of text (d = 0.66), mechanical correctness (d = 0.61), motivation to write (d = 1.42), and preferring word processing over writing by hand (d = 0.64). Especially powerful writing quality effects were associated with word processing programs that provided text quality feedback or prompted planning, drafting, or revising (d = 1.46), although this observation was based on a limited number of studies (n = 3).
AB - Since its advent word processing has become a common writing tool, providing potential advantages over writing by hand. Word processors permit easy revision, produce legible characters quickly, and may provide additional supports (e.g., spellcheckers, speech recognition). Such advantages should remedy common difficulties among weaker writers/readers in grades 1-12. Based on 27 studies with weaker writers, 20 of which were not considered in prior reviews, findings from this meta-analysis support this proposition. From 77 independent effects, the following average effects were greater than zero: writing quality (d = 0.52), length (d = 0.48), development/organization of text (d = 0.66), mechanical correctness (d = 0.61), motivation to write (d = 1.42), and preferring word processing over writing by hand (d = 0.64). Especially powerful writing quality effects were associated with word processing programs that provided text quality feedback or prompted planning, drafting, or revising (d = 1.46), although this observation was based on a limited number of studies (n = 3).
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Struggling writers
KW - Word processing
KW - Writing
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857139745&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84857139745&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5
DO - 10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:84857139745
SN - 0922-4777
VL - 25
SP - 641
EP - 678
JO - Reading and Writing
JF - Reading and Writing
IS - 3
ER -