©

 

 

 

 

IGM INNOVATION ABSTRACTS :2::"

tr Published by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development
With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation

 

 

 

THE WORD PROCESSOR AND ENGLISH COMPOSITION

English instructors, at least those of my acquaintance, have shown little inclination to leap upon the latest
high tech bandwagon. But now high tech is playing our song. Word processors are well established in their
reputation for greatly easing the mechanical aspects of writing and editing. In addition, they are widely used in
business and also available as peripheral features of personal computers. As a result, a large portion of our
students now have access to them, and many are expected to master their use on the job. The time has come
for composition instructors to overcome their typical aversion to all things technical and to adapt their teaching
methods to the obvious advantages of composing on a word processor.

Such was the argument from Clark County Community College’s Dean of Educational Services and the
Communication and Fine Arts Division Director when they persuaded me to accept a small grant to learn to use
Digital Corporation’s DECmate and to incorporate its use into the teaching of English composition. Ten
DECmate II’s had been donated to Clark County Community College by a local newspaper, The Review Journal. I
spent the entire summer of 1983 learning to type on the DECmate (it took that long because at the outset I
couldn’t type at all), and then the next four semesters experimenting with methods of persuading my students
to type and edit their compositions on DECmate II's.

A primary concern was academic integrity. Neither I nor the administration wanted to change the course
description of my English 101 sections, making them some kind of combination typing/composition classes or in
any other way deviant. That meant that course objectives had to remain essentially the same and that no major
changes could be made to course requirements.

Another problem was Clark County Community College’s open admissions policy. Even though my
DECmate sections were tagged in the schedule, I anticipated students registering who, for various reasons,
might not be able to master the word processor. Would they fail the course or earn a lower grade as a result?
Since the course description was not different from that of any other English 101, by all principles of legality and
justice they could not be penalized for not learning the DECmate. How then would they be motivated to do all
the writing required for English 101 and also learn to type on the DECmate?

English 101—DECmate Style

The first semester (Fall 1983) that I taught one DECmate section of English 101 was not particularly successful.
The DECmate lab was not set up until the third or fourth week into the semester. Also, I did not schedule
much class time in the lab. I allowed just one period for students to look at the overview software, which gave
them a vague idea of DECmate’s capabilities but little specific instruction. After that I counted on them to learn
the system on their own. Few of them did so, even though instructional software and manuals were available
for that purpose.

I decided that for following semesters every possible technique to increase student motivation had to be
employed. I was partially assisted by the budget office, which tacked a lab fee on to the DECmate English 101
sections. That, of course, helped restrict enrollment to students motivated enough to pay an extra $20.00.
However, more encouragement was needed. First, I asked the printing office to design certificates of
achievement that read "(Student name] has mastered the elementary editing features of DECmate II." I
displayed an example on the first day of class and expounded at length on how impressive such a certificate
would look to a potential employer. To this I added a graphic description of my own limited abilities to master
anything technical. Then I showed them the course syllabus, which I had typed on the DECmate.

All of this was quite effective for a starter, but I needed more. Initial training, I concluded, was crucial, so I
scheduled more time in the first three weeks of class in the DECmate lab. Dividing my class in half (class size
on any given day averages about 20 after early drops), I left half in the classroom watching a tape/slide
presentation on the paragraph and took the other half to the lab to view the DECmate instructional software.
We have ten terminals, so this generally worked out to one student per terminal, with occasional sharing. Each
student spent two class periods in the lab, which was sufficient for most to complete the programmed
instructional course. I stressed the need for further practice and the probable necessity of reviewing the material

 

 

AG Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712