carr@pi.cs.unc.edu (Michael Carr) (07/13/90)
Maybe people who are naturally sloppier writers are more likely to use Macs? The type of computer was given in the class description so maybe a certain type of people who are inclined to use the more "modern" Mac are more likely to be sloppy writers and more likely to be in those sections. ( nice sentence :-) ) A study should be done mixing people with types of computers at random, not allowing them to select the type they want. That way "IBM-type" people and "Mac-type" people will be working on either computer. Anyway, just speculation that the type of person might have something to do with it, not just the type of machine. Mike Carr
eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (07/13/90)
Rather than flame the article, the scientific thing to do is replicate the experiment changing a variable or two (factorial design) and invalidate the earlier study. If some serious professional seeks to do such I suggest getting a copy Campbell and Stanley's "Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research" [Rand-Mcnally] to seek out sources of internal and external invalidity. But I am skeptical anyone would do this. As Peter Denning noted, few studies ever get replicated in computer science. Make my day, prove me wrong. e. nobuo miya
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (C. Irby) (07/20/90)
[Note: Due to a mistake by the moderator, a recent article by Jesse W. Asher incorrectly attributed to Ken Weiss a comment that was actually made by C. Irby. Sorry! -- Dave] Jesse W. Asher writes: > Ken Weiss asks: > >> It is reasonably obvious that this paper was not critiqued before >> release, or if it was, it was by people with a leaning towards DOS... First of all, *I* said it... I don't know where you get your quote... > Nowhere in the article did the author suggest that the study was > scientific in any way or that it should be taken as gospel... Any time someone publishes something in a professional magazine, they *do* suggest that it is scientific and that it "should be taken as gospel." The article in question has been quoted in several places (including my workplace) as being proof that Macs are not "serious computers." Hogwash. The only real program the classes used was a word processor. Do you really think there was that much difference between them? > I thought the article was very interesting and thought provoking - exactly > what it was intended for. I did see inconsistancies, but once again it was > not a formal study with proper controls or proper consideration of other > causes of this supposed difference in writing ability between those that > use Macs and those that use PCs. By publishing, the author suggested that there *were* some controls. None existed. The entire article was based on the personal perceptions of the author and the small handful of people involved. The point is... she never proved herself *right*. Read the follow-up article. Or do your own research. There are several papers and studies out there that show - with *real* statistics - that GUIs enhance the use of computers. For the average user, a GUI is easier. That's the real difference... One last thought... why does IBM offer OS/2, and Microsoft sell Windows? Ever heard of X-Windows? C Irby
zwicky@itstd.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky) (07/21/90)
Jesse W. Asher writes: > It is also obvious that those that use Macs are greatly offended > and not willing to look at the article very objectively. Actually, my objections to the article have very little to do with a fondness for Macintoshes - if the arguments were the same, but the machine names were switched, I'd find it equally offensive. I have two primary complaints: 1) The effects attributed to the computers are extremely sweeping (in fact, they boil down to "brain rot"). While I am willing to believe that user interfaces make a difference in writing, I find it appalling that anyone could take seriously the idea that the user interface could completely change the topics the students chose. This is not just a much stronger effect than one would expect; it's completely the wrong kind of effect, and it is *precisely* the kind of effect one expects from differences in the population. The author is attributing immense power to the computer. 2) The fundamental claim is moral, and not about computers at all. The author attributes the perceived effect to a difference between "fun" computers and "serious" computers, going so far as to call it the "play effect". Ignoring the computer content, the basic point is that being amused interferes with your ability to learn things and think clearly. I find this attitude deeply offensive, particularly in teachers; it is a recipe for scaring students away from serious thought. Good researchers in most fields are deeply frivolous people, who do science because they find it the most pleasing thing they can do. (Take Feynman, for instance, a man who certainly never took himself too seriously. Or take the houseful of linguists who decided that *some* time ought to be devoted to non-linguistic topics, and instituted the rule that during dinner you could only discuss linguistics if you did so in a funny voice. I know several distinguished linguists who gained from this rule an ability to discuss deep theoretical concepts in linguistics, completely seriously, while one talked like Yoda and the other like Inspector Clouseau, and all innocent bystanders laughed hysterically. It does not seem to have effected their ground-breaking work in the field.) In short, the article seems to reveal two fundamental, common, and horrible misconceptions; computers are all-powerful, and work shouldn't be fun. If I had the ability, I would gild this paragraph by inserting a full-colour Mr. Yuk face here... Elizabeth Zwicky
huff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Charles Huff) (07/21/90)
Let's not rag on the study too much. The author admits that her observations are tentative and non-systematic, and even suggests a study with random assignment to follow up. If we become so anal that we can accept nothing short of the 'perfect' study, we will accept nothing. Actually, flawed studies are sometimes published with the hope that they will provoke a frenzy of data gathering (rather than moaning). Chuck
mcnamara@vixvax.mgi.com (Curt McNamara) (07/28/90)
Charles Huff writes: > Let's not rag on the study too much. The author admits that her > observations are tentative and non-systematic, and even suggests a > study with random assignment to follow up. This would be a good first start. A secondary concern of mine is that the MAC writers apparently used graphics in their papers. It does take additional time to learn a graphics program, and then to actually use it to produce something! It was apparent from the article that these graphics were not a significant part of the grade ("gilding" was the term used). Obviously, if two students spend the same amount of time creating a report and one uses some of that time to produce graphics, they will have less time available to produce good prose. In effect, the students who did create graphics were penalized for including them, as an equivalent grade would have required more total work (that for the written part, plus the additional for the graphics). So why did the MAC students use graphics while the DOS students didn't? Either they were both told graphics were OK, but the DOS machines didn't have a easily usable tools, or the assignments were so unstructured that the MAC students didn't know the criteria, or .... The bottom line is that the MAC students created graphics while the DOS students did not, and this in itself is a large difference between the groups. They didn't all do the same assignment! There are several interesting side issues here. Should "writing" courses include some time on graphics or illustration? Or should all students be required to take introductory courses in graphing as well as writing? Clearly the best written papers and textbooks imclude numerous illustrations and graphs. Where is this skill included in the curriculum? Personal bias: I use VAX, DOS, and MAC machines. I prefer to do documentation on the MAC because it is much easier to alter my text with a mouse, the appropriate software is readily available (and has been for years), and the WYSIWYG feature saves me much time. Curt McNamara
gt5614b@prism.gatech.edu (Robert John Butera Jr.) (07/31/90)
Curt McNamara writes: > .. should all students be required to take introductory courses in > graphing as well as writing? Clearly the best written papers and > textbooks imclude numerous illustrations and graphs... I believe that most engineering schools (Georgia Tech I know for sure) teach the necessity of charts, graphs, tables, and illustrations in courses such as technical writing and public speaking. Also, any student in a curriculum such as engineering or sciences that has many labs will find illustrations and graphs a necessity in their reports, or their grade will suffer! Robert John Butera Jr.