brucec@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Bruce Cheney) (02/06/91)
The following appeared in the paper this Sunday. These guys must
be DOS-heads, because of their tone and reference to Mac software
that I certainly haven't heard of and can't find in any magazine.
A typo? Did they mean Word, or MacWrite, or WriteNow? Has any one
seen this study? Are copies available from IBM or Compaq?
The Register-Guard
Eugene Oregon
Sunday, February 3, 1991
Study Shows MS-DOS users do better in college
By T.R. Reid and Brit Hume
Now that the Macintosh and MS-DOS PCs are looking more and more alike,
there's less fire in the famous running controversy over which system
is better. The endless arguments between IBM devotees and MacFanatics
that provided so much entertainment during the 1980s is fading away.
But a recent salvo in that familiar war has sparked major new controversy
between the Mac and MS-DOS camps.
The unlikely spark came from an article in a scholarly publication
called Academic Computing. In the pages of that august journal, Dr. Marcia
Peoples Halio, an English professor at the University of Delaware,
reported on a five-year study in which she compared the written quality
of student papers produced on Macintosh and MS-DOS machines.
You can see what's coming, can't you? Can't you just guess why this dry
academic survey swept through the PC community like a tidal wave?
Here's why: Dr. Halio concluded that students writing their papers
on IBM and similar MS-DOS computers made fewer spelling errors and earned
higher grades, on the average, than students who used the Macintosh.
Dr. Halio, who helps run the college's writing program, had a perfect
laboratory for such a study. Since 1985, the university has given a
standard freshman writing course in which students can use either a Macintosh
or a DOS machine. Generally, the Mac users write with WordWrite and
the DOS people use WordPerfect.
The professor started noticing and interesting pattern. Then she worked
through a big pile of back papers to draw her conclusions.
The Halio study says that DOS users in the freshman writing class turned in
papers with an average "readability scale" of grade 12.1 - that is, they
wrote college-level papers. Applying the same measure - the "Kincaid
Scale" - to Mac-written papers, the average grade level was a little below
eighth grade.
The report also says that DOS users were more apt to write about "serious"
issues, such as war, pollution, teen pregnancy, than the Mac cohort, who
wrote about such weighty topics as fast food.
If that doesn't get your blood running, Mac users, how about this. Students
who wrote on IBMs and clones made about four spelling errors per paper,
while the Mac user rang up and average of not 4, not 8, not 12, but 15
spelling errors on each assignment.
The professor, serious scholar that she is, didn't rush to any conclusions
about these findings, but we'll dive right into the analysis.
One possible explanation could be that the Macintosh is a less efficient
word-processing tool than the IBM-PC. If so, that might mean that Mac users
have to concentrate so much on the machine that they can't give sufficient
time to the message.
But that conclusion is ridiculous on its face. The Macintosh is a wonderful
computer for word processing. Heck, almost any Mac word-processing software
is easier to use the uninviting WordPerfect, the most commonly used DOS
word-processing program.
No, if there's any validity to the Delaware findings, the explanation
probably lies not with the computers but with the people using them. What
the professors have found may be just one more manifestation of a truth
universally acknowledged among PC buffs: Mac people are different from
DOS people.
Mac users, by and large, are free spirits - artistic types, rebels, the
kind of folks who don't want to be bound by stodgy old rules or
plain-Jane mechanisms.
It's hardly surprising that such people would eschew spelling rules or take
some liberties with conventional grammar. Heck, they already broke with
conventional, button-down ways of doing things when they opted for the
friendly little "computer for the rest of us."
IBM people, in contrast, are no-nonsense types. They're the three-piece-suit
crowd, willing and indeed eager to conform to the established ways of the
world. Of course they spell words right in their essays. Doing things
right is important: That's why they bought the "right" kind of computer
in the first place.
To which the only appropriate response is, "Viva la difference!" It's
differences like these that make the world go round. How dull things would
be if we had only one type of personal computer for a country made
of many different types of people.
But that brings us back to our opening observation. With Mac producing
IBM-like modular color PCs and IBM moving rapidly toward a Mac-like
user-friendly interface, we may be losing the satisfying differences
among PC families.
And that raises the key question. When every DOS-PC runs just like a
Macintosh, and every Mac looks like an IBM-PC, what will happen to those
freshman papers? Will the Macintosh users bring their grades up, or will
the DOS types sink to the error-prone level of their Mac-owning classmates.
*** end of article ****
bruce:
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekgen!brucecswsh@ellis.uchicago.edu (Janet M. Swisher) (02/06/91)
The "study" mentioned in the quoted article created a nice little flame-fest here on the net when it originally appeared in Academic Computing several months ago (or more--I think it was last spring). I don't remember precisely which groups discussed it, but I think comp.edu was one of them. The emerging consensus on the net at the time was that the "study" was totally uncontrolled, totally anecdotal, and totally useless for drawing conclusions from. Let's not let the fact that Reid and Hume are just now getting around to reading back issues of Academic Computing force us into another round on this question. Please. At the very least, before y'all post your theories about "Why Johnny Mac-User Can't Spell", please go find a copy of Academic Computing and read the original article. And then sleep on it. And then post. Let me also note that Reid and Hume write a regular (weekly?) widely-syndicated column on personal computers that appears in many city newspapers. I've given up reading it because I've rarely found anything of interest in it. -- Janet Swisher Internet: swsh@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Phone: (312) 702-7608 Academic and Public Computing P-mail: 1155 E. 60th St. Chicago IL 60637, USA
ccastcr@prism.gatech.EDU (Russo, Chris A.) (02/06/91)
swsh@ellis.uchicago.edu (Janet M. Swisher) writes: >At the very least, before y'all post your theories about "Why Johnny >Mac-User Can't Spell", please go find a copy of Academic Computing and >read the original article. And then sleep on it. And then post. I know I should wait, probably not post at all since this discussion has been hashed out before. Unfortunately, I heard about that article way back when. At that time, I didn't say anything to anyone. Now's my turn. Sorry. In the first place, I think that that article is probably garbage. Who in the world could have 15 errors a page with a spell checker? On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if people who used Macs were rated slightly lower IQ-wise than those who used IBM's to do their papers. I'm a computer user assistant here at Georgia Tech. I work here in a Macintosh lab. _EVERYONE_ wants to do his or her paper on a Mac. Consequently, you get a full range of people who don't own their own computers. IMHO people who have their own computers (on the average), are more intelligent than those who do not. So, you have a group of less intelligent non-owners using mostly Macintoshes. (Who would want to use an IBM if they didn't have to?) These guys are lowering the scores. Then on the other hand, you have a group of more intelligent owners using mostly IBM's (Ignorance of the masses). These guys are getting the better scores. That's the best explanation I can come up with. Well, and maybe people who don't have the intelligence to mess with computers go for the ease of use of a Mac. Who knows? -- Russo, Chris A. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccastcr Internet: ccastcr@prism.gatech.edu
granteri@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Grant Erickson) (02/07/91)
In reply to that article on the survey done by Dr. Halio, I also saw a report done by a college writing professor who conducted a similar test. I appologize, but I do not know the college or name of the professor. He commented on the fact that his reports handed in by student using Macs were composed with much more skill and displayed superior writing ability compared with papers handed in by IBM Compatible users. He also made the statement that the Macintosh papers were also laid out and published in a much more professional manner. Just my $0.02 on the topic. Grant Erickson .______________________________________________________. | UUCP: {crash, tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!granteri | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!granteri@nosc.mil | | INET: granteri@pnet51.orb.mn.org | |------------------------------------------------------| | The right half of the brain controls the left half | | of the body. This means that only left-handed people | | are in their right mind. | !______________________________________________________!
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (02/07/91)
Another explanation might be: Mac users were so excited about the flexibility. fonts, etc. they spent most of their time making it look terrific, but forgot that a teacher doesn't care about cosmetic detail, but grammar, composition, structure, logic, etc. All those PC users had to fix the grammar. They had nothing else to do. :-) -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett
black_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au (02/08/91)
Perhaps someone ought to do a controlled experiment in which people who normally write on DOS machines do some writing on a Mac and vice versa, so one could see how the same individuals did on different machines. This would distinguish whether any differences were do to the machines (and thus favour one over the other) or to the people who tend to use each (in which case they might do just as well or poorly whichever machine they used). Anyone know of such a study? Paul Black Applied Linguistics in Education black_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au Northern Territory University, Australia
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (02/08/91)
In article <7285@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM> brucec@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Bruce Cheney) writes: > If that doesn't get your blood running, Mac users, how about this. Students > who wrote on IBMs and clones made about four spelling errors per paper, > while the Mac user rang up and average of not 4, not 8, not 12, but 15 > spelling errors on each assignment. Don't either of these machines have spelling checkers? Me thinks a computer hater, or worse yet, a PC user that hasn't yet figured out the alt-shift-control-fkey-cryptic command that runs the spelling checker. > And that raises the key question. When every DOS-PC runs just like a > Macintosh, and every Mac looks like an IBM-PC, what will happen to those > freshman papers? Will the Macintosh users bring their grades up, or will > the DOS types sink to the error-prone level of their Mac-owning classmates. I bet the papers will be covered with frost because the PC and Mac will not look like each other until hell freezes over. Windows and icons do not make a Macintosh. A machine running DOS can never hope to be anything more that a Dosintosh (actually, that name is more than 8 characters, so I guess it would have to be a DOSINTOS.H). -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb8.094503.587@darwin.ntu.edu.au> black_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes: >Perhaps someone ought to do a controlled experiment in which people who >normally write on DOS machines do some writing on a Mac and vice versa, >so one could see how the same individuals did on different machines. >This would distinguish whether any differences were do to the machines >(and thus favour one over the other) or to the people who tend to use >each (in which case they might do just as well or poorly whichever >machine they used). No, this wouldn't work. The IBM fans would be to snobbish to work on a Mac, and would therefore sabotage the operation. And the Mac users working with WordPerfect would have their heads in the manual so often they'd be bound to pick up some technical writing and grammar skills along the way. This factor could be minimized by running 5.1 with a mouse, but that would almost defeat the purpose of our experiment, now wouldn't it? Dennis Lippert - macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (02/08/91)
In article <638@newave.UUCP> john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: In article <7285@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM> brucec@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Bruce Cheney) writes: > If that doesn't get your blood running, Mac users, how about this. Students > who wrote on IBMs and clones made about four spelling errors per paper, > while the Mac user rang up and average of not 4, not 8, not 12, but 15 > spelling errors on each assignment. Don't either of these machines have spelling checkers? Me thinks a computer hater, or worse yet, a PC user that hasn't yet figured out the alt-shift-control-fkey-cryptic command that runs the spelling checker. My bet would be that the mysterious WordWrite (whatever it is...) doesn't have one. That, or many people on the Mac didn't realize it was there. -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (02/12/91)
From article <4036@orbit.cts.com>, by granteri@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Grant Erickson): | In reply to that article on the survey done by Dr. Halio, I also saw a report | done by a college writing professor who conducted a similar test. I | appologize, but I do not know the college or name of the professor. He | commented on the fact that his reports handed in by student using Macs were | composed with much more skill and displayed superior writing ability compared | with papers handed in by IBM Compatible users. He also made the statement that | the Macintosh papers were also laid out and published in a much more | professional manner. Of course it's also possible that the superior layout influenced the professor's evaluation of the content. -- Paul DuBois dubois@primate.wisc.edu
weave@chopin.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) (02/13/91)
In article <7285@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM> brucec@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Bruce Cheney) writes: > >The Halio study says that DOS users in the freshman writing class turned in >papers with an average "readability scale" of grade 12.1 - that is, they >wrote college-level papers. Applying the same measure - the "Kincaid >Scale" - to Mac-written papers, the average grade level was a little below >eighth grade. I don't see where this is much of a problem. User manuals I write tend to be on the sixth grade level, and user's still can't figure out stuff. :-) >The report also says that DOS users were more apt to write about "serious" >issues, such as war, pollution, teen pregnancy, than the Mac cohort, who >wrote about such weighty topics as fast food. Here lies the key. Obviously, the computer doesn't influence your topic. The point is that the Macintosh probably attracts a different type of student due to its reputation for being easy. A less driven student will always take the easier way out of anything. Another factor is that a computer illiterate student again will pick the Mac. This same student probably doesn't realize that there is a spell checker within the program, therefore gets more spelling errors. Another consideration is that here at the University of Delaware, Macs are more popular and it is harder to get open lab time on a Mac than a PC. There- fore, the Mac students may have had less time on the computer to do the there paper. This *study* draws its conclusions based on a simple statistic. It's about as ridiculous as saying that since prisons are populated with such a high percentage of minorities compared to the general population, therefore minorities produce criminals. Which is bunk. -- >>>---> Ken Weaverling >>>----> weave@brahms.udel.edu