GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (07/15/90)
I remember someone posting about a user comparison study between
IBM and Mac users. They merely stated that the Mac users were to the
disadvantage. I found an article in last weekends Providence Journal
Bulliten called "Mac users less literate than IBM users?" Here it is:
--------
Excerpt from the Business section of the Providence Sunday Journal
July 8, 1990 (reprinted without permission.)
"Mac users less literate than IBM users?"
By L.R. Shannon
New York Times News Service
Most writers need all the help they can get. If a recently
published study is to be believed, those who write on a Macintosh
computer may need more than those who write on an IBM.
The study is called "Student Writing: Can the Machine Maim the
Message?" by Marcia Peoples Halio, assistant director of the writing
program at the English department of the University of Delaware.
It was published in the January 1990 issue of Academic Computing.
Since 1895, the University of Delaware has offered freshmen
composition students a choice of either Mac or IBM computers and
an equal amount of training on each. In 1987, when Halio taught
her first Mac section, she received an unpleasant suprise.
"Never before in 12 years of teaching had I seen such a sloppy
bunch of papers," she wrote. "Words were misspelled; commas were
placed haphazardly; semicolons were virtually nonexistant or placed
by means of 'breath' punctuation rules; and such fine points as
quotation marks, apostrophes, and question marks were treated with
gay abandon."
In addition, the Mac-wielding students chose essay topics such
as fast food, rock music and relationships; the IBM section preferred
essays on capital punishment, teenage pregnancy and nuclear war.
"On the other hand, the papers that the Mac class turned in were
often very creatively illustrated," she continued.
Subsequent discussions with other teachers and a computer analysis
of randomly selected compositions confirmed her impression.
The Mac students wrote shorter and less complex sentences at about
four grade levels lower than the IBM students. The research will
continue.
--------
My interpretation of the above article is that people who go out
of their way to avoid doing work chose Macintosh. I'd like to see the
study.
----
F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet
"Gooooood coffee."FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (07/17/90)
Offhand I'd say that this study simply shows that poor students not only spend less time in public school learning to write, spell, and compose, they also spend less time learning how to use the writing tools such as computers, word processors, and spell-checkers. In other words, as in all they things they approach, they pick the easiest and quickest to finish the assignment. The easiest subject, the shortest sentences, the fewest pages, the least research, the easiest computer to start up and operate. It is all of one piece and the fabric is there for anyone to admire. A brand of computer doesn't make you stupid anymore than a skil saw versus a hand saw or a broom versus a vacuum cleaner. But the terminally lazy will pick the power tool or the vacuum cleaner and do a half-assed job if for no other reason than they never really learn what they are doing and never take the time to learn the subtleties of the job and the tools. No technique. Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
nraoaoc@nmt.edu (NRAO Array Operations Center) (07/17/90)
In article <31794@cup.portal.com> FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) writes: >Offhand I'd say that this study simply shows that poor students not You guys should read the original study as summarized in Academic Computing. It was fairly well controlled. Students were not given a choice of which micro to use, only whether to use a micro or not. The tentative conclusion was that the Mac encourages playing around with fonts, etc. so students spent their time playing around with the appearance of the output, rather than thinking about the content. (It is a point all of us should think about now and then, while we spend hours TEX'ing a manuscript - which I am taking a break from right now.) Pat Palmer (email: ppalmer@nrao.edu)
seh@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Holaday) (07/17/90)
In article <24617@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: > > <information on a study which included ...> o > > "Never before in 12 years of teaching had I seen such a sloppy > bunch of papers," she wrote. "Words were misspelled; commas were > placed haphazardly; semicolons were virtually nonexistant or placed > by means of 'breath' punctuation rules; and such fine points as > quotation marks, apostrophes, and question marks were treated with > gay abandon." > Yeah, and besides that, several sentences were close to four lines long which increased the FOG index. <sorry, couldn't resist 8-)> -- mail: seh@pmafire.UUCP Steve Holaday or !uunet!pmafire!seh I *HATE* long signature files!