Advertisement

Computers and the Humanities

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 149–162 | Cite as

The Development of Early Computer-Assisted Writing Instruction (1960–1978): The Double Logic of Media and Tools

  • Carl Whithaus
Article

Abstract

This essay traces a distinction between computer-mediated writing environments that are tools for correcting student prose and those that are media for communication. This distinction has its roots in the influence of behavioral science on teaching machines and computer-aided writing instruction during the 1960s and 1970s. By looking at the development of the time-shared, interactive, computer-controlled, information television (TICCIT) and early human–computer interaction (HCI) research, this essay demonstrates that hardware and software systems had the potential to work as both tools and media. The influence of this double logic is not only historical but also has implications for post-secondary writing instruction in the age of Microsoft Word, ETS's e-rater, and the “reading/assessment” software tools being developed by Knowledge Analysis Technologies (KAT). This essay challenges composition researchers and computational linguists to develop pedagogies and software systems that acknowledge writing environments as situated within the logic of both tools for correction and media for communication.

behavioral science composition studies computer-assisted instruction (CAI) Computer-Controlled computer-mediated communication (CMC) e-rater human-computer interaction (HCI) Information Television (TICCIT) Interactive Interactive Television (ITV) teaching writing time-shared 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alderman D.L., Lola R.A., Richard T.M. (1978) PLATO and TICCIT: An Evaluation of CAI in the Community College. Educational Technology, 18(4), pp. 40–46.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander J. (2002) Digital Spins: The Pedagogy and Politics of Student-centered E-zines, Computers and composition, 19(4), pp. 387–410.Google Scholar
  3. Anson C. (1999) Distant Voices: Teaching Writing in a Culture of Technology. College English, 61(3), pp. 261–281.Google Scholar
  4. Berlin J. (1987) Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom L.Z., Martin B. (1967) The Teaching and Learning of Argumentative Writing. College English, 29, 128–135.Google Scholar
  6. Blumenthal J.C. (1960) English 2600. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  7. Braddock R., Richard L.-J., Lowell S. (1963) Research into Written Composition. Champaign, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
  8. Braun M.J. (2001) Political Economy of Computers and Composition: ''Democracy hope'' in the era of globalization. JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, 21(1), pp. 129–162.Google Scholar
  9. Bruffee K. (1999) Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore, MY: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bunderson C.V., Edward W.S. (1974) Formative Evaluation Fundamentals for TICCIT courseware. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
  11. Canagarajah A.S. (1997) Safe Houses in the Contact Zone: Coping Strategies of African-American Students in the Academy. College Composition and Communication, 48(2), 173–196.Google Scholar
  12. DeWitt S. (2001) Writing Inventions: Identities, Technologies, Pedagogies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  13. Educational Testing Service. (1978) Evaluation of the TICCIT computer-assisted instructional system in the community college. Princeton, NJ: ETS.Google Scholar
  14. Emig J. (1971) The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
  15. Englebart D.C. (1963) A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man's intellect. In Howerton P., Weeks D. (eds.), The Augmentation of Man's Intellect by Machine. Washington D.C.: Spartan Books.Google Scholar
  16. Foltz P.W., Gilliam S., Kendall S. (2000) Supporting Content-based Feedback in Online Writing Evaluation with LSA. Interactive learning environments, 8(2), pp. 111–129.Google Scholar
  17. Fox T. (1990) The Social Uses of Writing: Politics and Pedagogy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
  18. Hawisher G.E., Cynthia S. eds. (2000) Global literacies and the world-wide web. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Hawisher G.E., Paul L., Charles M., Cynthia S. (1996) Computers and the Teaching of Writing in Higher Education, 1979-1994: A History. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  20. Herrington A., Charles M. (2001) What Happens when Machines Read our Students' Writing. College English, 63(4), 480–499.Google Scholar
  21. Hughes T.P. (1989) American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870-1970. New York, NY: Viking.Google Scholar
  22. Jones R.L. (1995) TICCIT and CLIPS. The early years. CALICO Journal 12(1), pp. 84–97.Google Scholar
  23. Jones G.R. (2000) Cyberschools: An Educational Renaissance. 2nd edition. Englewood, CO: Cyber Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  24. Kemp F. (2001) Interactive Composition ONLINE. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from 〈http://english.ttu.edu: 5555/manual/manualframe.asp?typeof=icon〉.Google Scholar
  25. Landauer T.K., Susan T.D. (1997) A solution to Plato's Problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104(2), pp. 211–240.Google Scholar
  26. Landauer T.K., Peter W.F., Darrell L. (1998) An Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3), pp. 259–284.Google Scholar
  27. Licklider J.C.R. (1960) Man-computer Symbiosis. IRE transactions on human factors in electronics, pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
  28. Licklider J.C.R., Robert W.T. (1968) The Computer as a Communication Device. International Science and Technology, pp. 21–31.Google Scholar
  29. Macrorie, K. (1969) Roundtable Review. Research in the Teaching of English, 3, pp. 228–236.Google Scholar
  30. McGee T., Ericsson P. (2002) The Politics of the Program: MSWORD as the Invisible Grammarian. Computers and Composition, 19, 453–470.Google Scholar
  31. McLuhan M. (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  32. McLuhan M. (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (2nd edition) New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
  33. Morton F.R. (1960) The Teaching Machine and the Teaching of Languages: A report on tomorrow. PMLA, LXXV, 4(2), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  34. Neff J.M. (1998) From a Distance: Teaching Writing on Interactive Television. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, pp. 136–157.Google Scholar
  35. Page E. (1966) The Imminence of Grading Essays by Computer. Phi Delta Kappan, 47, pp. 238–243.Google Scholar
  36. Page E. (1968) Analyzing Student Essays by Computer. International Review of Education, 14, pp. 210–225.Google Scholar
  37. Perl S. (1979) The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, pp. 317–336.Google Scholar
  38. Perl S. (1999) Early Work on Composing: Lessons and Illumination. In Rosner et al.Google Scholar
  39. Porter D. (1962) The Behavioral Repertoire of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 13(3), pp. 14–17.Google Scholar
  40. Powers D.E., Burstein J.C., Chodorow M., Fowles ME., Kukich K. (2001) Stumping e-rater(tm): Challenging the Validity of Automated Essay Scoring (GRE Board Professional Report No. 98-08bP).Google Scholar
  41. Riskin J. (1972) Written Composition and the Computer. Educational Technology, 12(6), pp. 46–51.Google Scholar
  42. Rosner M., Beth B., Debra J. (1999) History, Reflection, and Narrative: The Professionalization of Composition, 1963-1983. Stamford, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  43. Ross C.J., Dean B. (1976) Faculty Summer Training Program: The TICCIT System. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
  44. Rothwell K.S. (1962) Programmed Learning: A Back Door to Empiricism in English Studies. College English., 23(4), pp. 245–250.Google Scholar
  45. ScoreItNow! (2002) Welcome to ScoreItNow! Retrieved April 22, 2003, from 〈http:// www.scoreitnow.org/〉Google Scholar
  46. Sirc G. (1989) Response in the electronic medium. In Anson, C. (ed.), Writing and Response: Theory, practice, and research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
  47. Shaughnessy M. (1977) Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Skinner B.F. (1969) Contingencies of Reinforcement; A Theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  49. Skinner B.F. (1961) Why we Need Teaching Machines. Harvard education review, 31(4), pp. 377–398.Google Scholar
  50. Skinner B.F. (1957) Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  51. Sternglass, M.S. (1997) Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level. Mahwah, N.J., Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Vitanza V. (1996) Cyberreader. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  53. Waldrop M. (2001) The Dream Machine: J.C.R. Licklider and the Revolution that Made Computing Personal. Viking, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Whithaus C. (2002) Green Squiggly lines: Evaluating Student Writing in Computer-Mediate Environments. Academic.writing: special multi-journal issue. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from 〈http://aw.colostate.edu/articles/whithaus2002/〉.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl Whithaus
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations