lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org (Nick Lubofsky) (02/08/90)
Any comments on this hypothesis? (I'm reserving judgement.) Article 501 of comp.sys.mac.digest: From: Info-Mac-Request@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (The Moderators) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.digest Subject: Info-Mac Digest V8 #24 Message-ID: <9002062327.AA11371@sumex-aim.stanford.edu> Date: 6 Feb 90 23:27:23 GMT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Feb 90 16:59:38 CST From: Graeme Forbes <PL0BALF@vm.tcs.tulane.edu> Subject: Writing on Macs vs PCs Those of you who teach classes where students have to write essays will be interested in an article in the January "Academic Computing", "Can the Machine Maim the Message?" by Marcia Peoples Halio. Halio is Assistant Director in the Writing Program at the University of Delaware. For some semesters she taught freshman composition using IBM PCs and then in Spring '87 she taught a section using the Mac. I quote her reaction to the first batch of essays: "...never before in twelve years of teaching had I seen such a sloppy bunch of papers." The thesis of her article is that the Mac makes for bad writing in a way that the PC doesn't. Though students can choose which machine they use in the course, she thinks that they all start out with equal writing skills (because they all have comparable SATs - is this a good reason?). Yet the Mac papers are littered with violations of English grammar, have short para- graphs and short sentences resulting in lack of developed or complex thought, and are written in the English of the advertising industry (which presumably aims for the lcd). She confirmed these impressions by running 20 randomly selected essays from both IBM and Mac sections through a VAX text analysis program. She also noted a difference in choice of topics: Mac students write about fast food, dating, the idiot box etc., PC students write about capital punishment, teenage pregnancy, nuclear war. Why the differences? Various possibilities are suggested. Students tend to get sloppy if something is too easy. A command line interface makes you concentrate and makes you sensitive to a demand for precision. The Mac seems like a toy while sitting down in front of an IBM means serious business (what will happen when they all run Windows or PM?). The Mac focuses too much attention on appearance and too little on content. And so on. (My own observation about Mac writing is the compulsion some people have to use "it's" (abbreviates "it is") when they mean "its" (possessive).) Does anyone have similar experience to Halio's or ideas about explanations? Is anyone at a school where the writing classes use Macs with full-page dis- plays? A final note: Halio doesn't know if the effect wears off, and if it does, how long it takes. Graeme Forbes Bitnet: pl0balf at tcsvm ------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________________________ Nicholas Lubofsky | Internet:lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org | The Aerospace (213) 336-5454 | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Corporation VoiceMailbox 3064 | Life is precious, Love is so rare... | Los Angeles ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
costin@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Dan Costin) (02/09/90)
In article <66437@aerospace.AERO.ORG> lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org (Nick Lubofsky) writes: >The thesis of her article is that the Mac makes for bad writing in a way >that the PC doesn't. How about the possibility that the students are predisposed to be shallow or deep, or rather visual vs. deep thinking, which would be reflected in their papers no matter which coputer they'd use, BUT those that were more visual-oriented bought Mac's while those that were less so bought IBM's? Please forgive this superficial analysis, but I'm writing on a Mac :-) -dan
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (02/10/90)
In article <66437@aerospace.AERO.ORG> lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org (Nick Lubofsky) writes: |Any comments on this hypothesis? (I'm reserving judgement.) |[...] |Date: Sat, 03 Feb 90 16:59:38 CST |From: Graeme Forbes <PL0BALF@vm.tcs.tulane.edu> |Subject: Writing on Macs vs PCs | |Those of you who teach classes where students have to write essays will be |interested in an article in the January "Academic Computing", "Can the Machine |Maim the Message?" by Marcia Peoples Halio. Halio is Assistant Director in |the Writing Program at the University of Delaware. For some semesters she |taught freshman composition using IBM PCs and then in Spring '87 she taught |a section using the Mac. I quote her reaction to the first batch of essays: |"...never before in twelve years of teaching had I seen such a sloppy bunch |of papers." | |The thesis of her article is that the Mac makes for bad writing in a way |that the PC doesn't. Though students can choose which machine they use |in the course, she thinks that they all start out with equal writing skills |(because they all have comparable SATs - is this a good reason?). Yet the |Mac papers are littered with violations of English grammar, have short para- |graphs and short sentences resulting in lack of developed or complex thought, |and are written in the English of the advertising industry (which presumably |aims for the lcd). She confirmed these impressions by running 20 randomly |selected essays from both IBM and Mac sections through a VAX text analysis |program. She also noted a difference in choice of topics: Mac students write |about fast food, dating, the idiot box etc., PC students write about capital |punishment, teenage pregnancy, nuclear war. | |Why the differences? Various possibilities are suggested. Students tend to get |sloppy if something is too easy. A command line interface makes you concentrate |and makes you sensitive to a demand for precision. The Mac seems like a toy |while sitting down in front of an IBM means serious business (what will happen |when they all run Windows or PM?). The Mac focuses too much attention on |appearance and too little on content. And so on. This is, to me at least, amazing, astounding bullshit. The sample size is sadly laughable, the assumptions frighteningly bogus. Is this the horoscope equivalent of the 90's? I'm curious to know just how Halio dealt with rectifying the problems presented by the Mac students' essays. "Selected essays"? By what criterion? Isn't there a lack of developed thought involved in allowing a text analysis program to provide one's conclusions on what is essentially a set of semantic criteria? As the dreaded kibo sez, "Disinformation is fun", whether intended or not... Rant, -- (__) Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \@@/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _/ \_ "Hearts of stone, doo-de-wahh, will never break" - The Charms
kent@sunfs3.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (02/13/90)
In article <66437@aerospace.AERO.ORG> lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org (Nick Lubofsky) writes: >Any comments on this hypothesis? (I'm reserving judgement.) [He then quotes an article about a writing class at the University of Delaware using Macintoshes; that the writing was worse than the writing from the IBM version of the course.] The key point here seems to be that the students were given the choice between Macintoshes and PCs. It appears that at the University of Delaware's writing program, good writers preferred IBMs and poor writers preferred the Macintosh. Why? Maybe because the poor writers had not done any writing and the good writers had. Where had those good writers likely done all that writing? More likely on IBMs than on Macs because there are so many more IBMs in the world. Which computer do people choose? The one they know. What if they don't know any computers? I suggest that they tend to choose Macintoshes--if they can afford one and are really presented with the choice. Want to read something truly terrible? Force those same bad writers to use an IBM and *then* see what they hand you. Frightening thought. Alternative explanation: Maybe the Macintosh users were having too much fun playing with the machine to really spend much time writing. I wonder how well they would be writing a year later, once the novelty wore off. I know that the mechanics of writing with a pen or a typewriter were always such a barrier for me that I was nearly helpless in print before I bought my Macintosh. Now I can write a million times better than I could before before. (How well that is, I leave to you.) Third explanation: The bad writers knew they couldn't write and were looking for every easy way out, and the Mac, being easier to use, was their preference. Does that make the Mac bad for writing? No, just easier. Realize that what I am writing here (at a Macintosh, but using emacs running on a Sun) are guesses about what the anecdotal report really means. To know what is going on there, the two groups need to be matched for other factors. Controls are needed. -- Kent Borg lloyd!kent@husc6.harvard.edu or ...!husc6!lloyd!kent MacNet: kentborg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617)426-3577 "Thumper! Don't let them kill Thumper!" --Zippy, 15 January, 1990
russell@minster.york.ac.uk (02/22/90)
In my limited experience of writing, I have found a similar phenomenum. I use a Sun workstation, not a Mac or a PC, but run various typesetting tools on it ranging from nroff through troff, TeX, LaTeX and WYSIWYG systems. It is often the case that the prettier the output, the more easily I and my colleagues are impressed with it, and indeed a lot of time goes into tweaking the typesetting into producing prettier output. This is *not* just a case of better presentation being superior, because this tweaking is done at the expense of refining the contents. And if I am initially impressed with the superficial results, I am less likely to change it afterwards. I think the problem, with me anyway, is that no matter what the content is like, a typeset document looks professional and "finished", and there is a distinct psychological barrier which means that I am loath to alter it. Jotted ideas are obviously incomplete and need work, but typesetting them fools you into believing that they are fine as they are. Now, I will hastily add that since I am aware of the problem, I try and consciously concentrate on the content and not just the appearence of the document :) Knuth says, in the TeXbook, that good typesetting deserves high quality text (or something similar, anyway) - I feel that the converse is true in practice: the better the typesetting, the worse the content tends to be... if you are not careful, that is... Russell. Advanced Computer Architecture Group. russell@uk.ac.york.minster
jatst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jozsef A Toth) (02/28/90)
In article <635636458.4382@minster.york.ac.uk> russell@SoftEng.UUCP (russell) writes: > >Knuth says, in the TeXbook, that good typesetting deserves high quality >text (or something similar, anyway) - I feel that the converse is true in >practice: the better the typesetting, the worse the content tends to be... > >if you are not careful, that is... > I would recommend something a little more recent like Framemaker (available on a Sun) and then you won't have to worry about your semantic mental masturbation when it comes to what document processing tool you want to use. This is almost like the slide rule vs. calculator vs. Exponential notation pencil&paper arg- ument. A decade or so ago a real man used a slide rule or paper&pencil to do real calculations and a wimp resorted to a calculator. In "Psych. of Everyday Things" Norman uses the same analogy for document editors, spelling checkers etc. The point he stresses is that one should focus on the CONTENT and not the MECHANICS of the task-at-hand. Tweeking using all those archaic text formatters (I assume you're a vi user also) does shift one's focus away from the content and towards the mechanics.