• Looking at Flower and Hayes’ model, where might the word proces- sor play a particular role in the writing process?
• Might other technologies be used to support the same or other stages of this model?
As we look to the Web for such activity, there is no less an interest in the cognitive processes associated with reading; however, the Web also provides texts that are socioculturally situated and we have opportunities to provide learners with access to these as part of real-world discourse communities. We see a similar shift in potential if we look to the roles that computers play in writing development.
Figure 5.2 The writing process adapted from Flower and Hayes (1981).
TASK ENVIRONMENT
THE WRITER’S LONG-TERM MEMORY
Language MONITOR
PLANNING
GENERATING
ORGANIZING
GOAL SETTING
TRANSLATING REVIEWING READING
EDITING WRITING ASSIGNMENT
Topic Audience Motivating Cues
TEXT PRODUCED
SO FAR
Knowledge of Topic Knowledge of Audience Stored Writing Plans
of the word processors in the language classroom, whether it be in L1 or L2.
Piper’s early research (1987) into her learners’ use of the word processor reported willingness to spend more time composing, greater concentration on the task in hand, willingness to see the writing as a ‘luid’ piece of work, therefore editing where required. We earlier suggested that technology might play a heuristic role, supporting thinking. The functional attributes of the word processor might also be seen to be directly linked to the writing process.
Positioning the cursor in the text, deleting, inserting, using copy and paste all relate to thinking about the text in terms of both accuracy and organiza- tional cohesion. As we use these keyboard functions, there is purposeful thinking associated with each decision and the effects of those decisions are seen on screen.
The immediate visualization of text developments is an important attribute of working on screen. Take, for example, paragraphing. Teachers may indi- cate paragraph breaks in their marking codes, but paragraphing is signalled by ‘white space’ on the inal paper product. Unless the learner rewrites, the full signiicance of this is not seen. Piper (1987: 121) describes how she was able to illustrate the concept of paragraphing to a learner by introducing the
visible, physical separation on the screen in front of the learner. This would be impossible to do on paper. The ability to demonstrate other text improvements such as moving blocks and pointing to resulting improvements in coherence is also immediate. This may be done over an individual’s shoul- der. It may be achieved by using an interactive whiteboard or a computer projector in a computer lab context or in a classroom where there is teacher equipment at the front of a class. We might also design speciic tasks to focus learner thinking on these textual elements.
Here is a task which requires learners to repair a text from which all the verbs have been deleted.
• What is the language focus?
• What keyboard functions would learners use as they problem solve?
These friends of mine a new carpet, so they to the shop and one and the carpet-itter round to it it while they out at work. When he, he that there a bump right in the middle. He that this be a pack of cigarettes that he absent-mindedly, so he up and down on the bump until it lat.
The family home and the carpet. Then they the man if he their pet canary which missing. It then that he his cigarettes on the hall table!
If we look again at Flower and Hayes’ framework, this activity does not really sit within the more obvious stages of ‘translating of ideas onto the page’ nor in the cyclical revision stages as more text is generated. However, it does contribute to the language element that is part of the writer’s long- term memory, informing how subsequent writing takes place. Other text repair or embellishment activities such as this might, for example, focus on the use of cohesive devices in speciic text types; or learners might be given a text for reorganization, using copy and paste to see the result of their think- ing about text. We see such various activities in our coursebooks, and it may just be that there are opportunities for a computer-based approach, allowing learners to experiment luidly, review based on teacher or peer feedback and take away a tidy text.
Such activities are also a means of moving learners towards longer texts and of scaffolding writing quality in a more structured way. Research indings in studies of writing quality are generally diverse, however, with numerous variables impacting on outcomes: word processing familiarity, individual
writing ability, technology provision (both numbers of computers and regu- larity of access), curriculum constraints. The latter is a key challenge, and teachers often identify challenges in allocating time to implement a ‘process- oriented’ approach to writing development – with or without the aid of technology. Acknowledging the mixed indings in this area, Pennington (1996) provides useful food for thought, which may inluence our approach to word-processed writing instruction. Her work suggests that improved quality is an outcome over a period of time. She suggests a cause-effect cycle in which we see writing events linked to a series of stages through which the developing computer writer will pass. Pennington sees those developmental stages in terms of four outcomes:
• Writing easier
• Writing more
• Writing differently
• Writing better.
Learners need to be supported towards producing more text in order that thinking about text development be activated: without more extensive text, we cannot attend to text cohesion and coherence. These general outcomes describe more speciic effects in terms of:
• cognitive/affective effects, ‘which impact on the learner’s concept of writing and attitudes towards writing’;
• process effect, which ‘comprise the learner’s way or manner of writing’;
• product effects which ‘are the learner’s written texts’.
The word processor can support learners in that development. We started this section, however, by asking whether other tools might play a role, and we return to that question. Look at this description of the stages of a lesson aiming towards a writing outcome. Note which technologies are used, and how uses might support speciic stages of the writing process as described by Flower and Hayes.
Look at a coursebook that you frequently use.
Are there any activities which focus on elements of text composition, for which you might exploit the particular attributes of the word processor?