diff options
author | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
---|---|---|
committer | Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> | 2019-09-02 13:46:59 +0900 |
commit | e0c6872cf40896c7be36b11dcc744620f10adf1d (patch) | |
tree | 60335e10d2f4354b0674ec22d7b53f0f8abee672 /usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_5/reese2.tex |
Initial commit
Diffstat (limited to 'usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_5/reese2.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_5/reese2.tex | 155 |
1 files changed, 155 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_5/reese2.tex b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_5/reese2.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d068ae8e75 --- /dev/null +++ b/usergrps/uktug/baskervi/4_5/reese2.tex @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ +\title{Report on European Writing and Computers Conference} +\author{Allan Reese} + +\begin{Article} + + \noindent The European Conference on Writing and Computers held in + Utrecht in October attracted more than one hundred and fifty + assorted academics, predominantly psychologists and educationalists. + This conference was formed by combining two events: the biennial + meeting of the Special Interest Group on Writing of the European + Association on Learning and Instruction (EARLI SIG), and the annual + meeting of the European Conference on Computers and Writing (ECW). A + third `event' took place in parallel, an on-line conference hosted + on a computer in the United States. + + On top of these various groups and starting points, the conference + was organized within twelve conference themes (`What is Writing?', + `Writing as a learning tool', `Effective Instruction', etc.) and + with a variety of formats; there were more than a hundred papers, + posters, workshops and demonstrations. Participation was like using + hypertext; unless you stuck to one theme it was a matter of browsing + round, following up leads and trying not to regret the parts you + missed. The organizers distributed a bound set of abstacts some + weeks before the conference. This was a great aid in planning and is + the main record of the conference, as no direct `Proceedings' are + planned. Delegates were instead asked to contribute chapters for + three books on themes relevant to the conference. These books are + planned for publication in 1995. + +The emphasis through the seven ECW conferences has shifted from +computers and software, to writing and the writing process. In now +linking with a SIG representing mainly academic research, the writing +itself ceased to be a focus of interest. Few of these researchers +considered writing as a product to be \emph{read}; text and writers are +\emph{data}. There were studies of: how children form sentences; the +types of grammatical errors made by students learning a second +language, or learning \emph{in} a second language; linguistic forms +used in academic papers and how these offer cues to a social subtext; +comparisons of language used in formal and informal writing. No one +attended the conference as an `author'; everyone was an observer. The +poor quality of presentation in many posters was striking --- people +talking about effective communication themselves ignoring all the +necessities of the medium. As usual speakers abused the overhead +projector with illegible or unintelligible foils. + +The positive side was that within the anarchic and fulsome atmosphere +of pure research there were so many opportunities to seek out +exhibitors and discuss ideas. Compared to a typically British +timetabled and regimented sequence of papers leaving few minutes for +questions before proceeding, most of our time was spent in parallel +poster sessions where you could spend an hour on twenty topics or just +one. One person had been deputed as a `discussant' on each theme and +in the final sessions led a discussion, which helped in shaping +all one's impressions into a coherent whole. Necessarily, these +discussions did not lead to consensus or firm conclusions! + +I looked particularly at tools to assist writers. The presentations +caused me to wonder whether there is a strong divide between software for +training writers, and that used in the production process. Adult +and professional writers now have well-known products such as MS~Word +and WordPerfect that subsume aids like spell-checkers and thesauruses. +The research products on display were not in that league and had been +developed in very constrained and particular circumstances: a program +to encourage story writing in early teens; a program to guide +engineering undergraduates in planning technical reports; programs to +teach journalistic style. One contemporary strand (all round the +world) is the observation that traditional writing instruction based +round constructive feedback and revision is time-consuming and +expensive; everyone would like a computer-based alternative that is +cheaper and more readily available. The irony is that the software +displayed would sink without trace without considerable support from +the teaching researchers. + +The research shows little sign that computer-aided instruction (CAI) +would be superior or faster. CAI may be appropriate in well-structured +situations, areas where one might consider using SGML to ensure +completeness and adherence to required formats. But can it be used to +encourage reflective and original writing? The researchers didn't talk +about the software they used for their own writing --- again, this +odd, clinical decoupling between objective and subjective observation +--- and the only time I discussed \LaTeX{} was with a UK delegate who +had had a book mangled by a publisher. Many of the craft skills +mentioned --- for example, teaching undergraduates to write a table of +contents to assist in planning their report --- are well-supported in +the \LaTeX{} philosophy; I felt that the psychologists should break +out of their research clique and look at pragmatic rather than +conceptual solutions. + +The keynote address widened the field to include pedagogical applications +of general-purpose software. We can encourage students to use commodity +software in all subject areas; this is one aspect of information +technology as an enabling rather than prescriptive tool. Students of +literature, for example, might build a database of ideas and images in +poems, and through this discover trends or associations. David Jonassen +(Penn State Univ) linked this to the constructivist view of education --- +don't just `teach facts' but train students \emph{how} to make their own +sense of the world by individually using `cognitive tools'. The teacher +operates as facilitator and mentor, not an authority. It was a stimulating +talk and the skills described would assist able students in pre-writing +organization of material. + +As a writer and teacher of writing, I took comfort that the conference +confirmed there is still no magic shortcut to learning the craft. How +do you get to be a writer? Several contributions addressed points +relating to providing feedback from teacher to student. They discussed +the barriers to communication, the social context, psychological and +cultural factors. The teacher-pupil relationship is mirrored in +professional spheres, such as employer-staff and editor-contributor. +It was very interesting, but would relate equally to teaching in any +subject. Is the teacher being constructive, or expressing power? +Good writers say they are writing for themselves, but it is a gift or +a skill to use yourself as a critical audience. + +My highlight was Jack Selzer's (also Penn State Univ) paper +\emph{Scientific and technical writing in a post-modern era.} What does +post-modern mean? It's a jargon term for texts that challenge and +break the conventions of `modern science'. ``Where conventional +writing is sober and restrained, post-modern ones are playful, +extravagant, exuberant.\ldots Where conventional scientific writing +prizes consensus and agreement, these unconventional ones call for +pluralism and voice conflict.\ldots [They are] unpredictable and +exploratory.'' Too much writing nowadays is formulaic and +conventional, in form and content, to the point of parody. Rules is +rules, but writers must understand the rules and not apply them +blindly. If students are not to confuse computer writing with +computerized writing, these are the texts they should study. Take a +random example: \textit{The \TeX book}. + + +\subsection{Postscript} + +I use Correct Grammar (CG) as an aid in proof-reading and polishing. It +measures the above text as `fairly difficult', with a US reading level of +14th grade. It found seven passive sentences, of which I changed one and +clarified the meaning. It found one real spelling mistake (I'd written +``fullsome''.) and suggested ``post-modern'' should be hyphenated, though +Selzer had not. CG objected to the noun and verb discordance in ``Rules is +rules''. It found eleven sentences longer than thirty one words, its +default for academic writing (I could change that). In this piece I left +them all. It suggested one `run-on sentence'; this sentence had worried +me, but I left it --- can you spot it? CG suggested ``in general'' was a +weak phrase, and I took it out. It picked up several strings of +prepositions, but I thought they were clear and necessary so overruled it. +CG missed a phrase that read ``like\ldots\ like\ldots'' but I decided the +first time was identifying examples while the second did indicate +similarity so made a slight change. + +Correct Grammar is a useful adjunct to straight re-reading your text. +It's reasonably cheap. One irritation is that it is not \TeX-aware. +I've suggested several times that the \TeX{} community lobby for this +to be added. As \emph{thinking} writers, we are probably the intended +market for such a product. + +\end{Article} + |