The present study compared handwritten reports with those written on computers for
ten precisely defined quality factors. Reports written under both conditions by 160
upper division college students in a business communication course were submitted to
the Grammatik 11 program, for quality analysis and the results were subsequently
analyzed for significant differences using ANOVA. More similarities than differences
were found as six ofthe ten tests did not show significant differences. The findings of
the study do not support a general conclusion that basic writing qualify will improve
when documents are written by computer as compared to writing them by hand. The
importance ofthe present findings as they relate to earlier research and future research directions are discussed.
A Comparison of Business Conununication
Quality between Computer Written and
Handwritten Samples
C. Glenn Pearce & Randolph T. Barker
Virginia Commonwealth University
he computer is becoming an accepted organizational and pedagogical
T
tool in business communication, but does it improve the quality of
the written output? Much effort has been placed on developing word
processing packages and courses, designing electronic mail services,
encouraging (and in some cases, requiring) students to own a computer
for coursework, and using computer laboratories as part of business
commimication classes. Yet, the question remains as to whether this
acceptance and implementation of the technology has produced the
anticipated results.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In a critical review ofthe literature on writing with word processors.
Hooper (1987) noted that most studies of h i ^ school and college English
writing courses support computer use because "revision is made easier"
(p. 5). Nevertheless, research to date regarding the effect of computer
use on writing quality and quantity has produced conflicting findings.
Several authors have found that using the word processor for writing
activities enhances communication. Maik (1987) noted increases in
revision and editing in college business writing courses. Tone and
Winchester's (1988) ERIC digest also noted that in some cases using the
computer had an effect "if not a dramatic impact on both the quality and
quantity of writing" (p. 2). Tone and Winchester looked at studies of
English and writing composition conducted in elementary, secondary.
141
142
The Joumal af Business Cammunicatian
28:2:Spriiig 1991
and college courses. They also found, however, that in many studies,
quantity did not increase, nor did quality improve.
McCallister and Louth (1988) examined the effects of word processing
on the quality of revisions. The findings revealed that the quality of
college basic English student compositions was improved when using the
word processor as compared to pen and pencil. Also focusing on college
basic writing, McCuthen, Hull, and Smith (1987) found that using an
interactive editor, supplemented by a simple word processing package,
resulted in more corrections, particularly for those errors requiring a
consulting strategy to apply grammatical rules.
Comparing the performance of junior high school students using the
word processor with students using pen and paper, Kurth (1987) found
that the word processing group wrote more substantial compositions,
although the quality of global revisions was not improved. Hawisher
(1987) found similar results upon investigating the effects of word
processing on the revision strategies of college freshmen in EngUsh
classes. Essays produced by pen and typewritor received quality ratings
comparable to those produced with the computer.
Haas (1989) found that experienced and student writors planned less
when writing on the computor than when writing by hand or when using
a combination of the two methods. Also studying the work of experienced
writers, Lutz (1987) found no clear distinctions for either professional
writers or Ph.D. writing theory students. The author did noto a trend,
though, for both groups to make more changes on the computor when
revising and editing.
Regarding quality issues, Bemhardt, Eldwards, and Wojahn (1989)
found that computor writton college compositions were of bettor quality
than those writton by hand. On the other hand. Collier (1983b) found
that the quality of writing did not improve when nursing students used
the computor compared with their using conventional methods; however,
the quantity of text writton was greator. In another study by Collier
(1983a), college student texts completod hy hand, typewritor, and computor were compared for creativity and writing skills. Analysis revealed
that both writing and creativity were enhanced by using either the
typewritor or the computor.
Focusing on syntax and quality, Etohison (1985) conductod a comparative study of handwriting and word processing. The results showed that
the quality of college student compositions increased for those subjects
using word processing. However, some syntactic variables were not
affectod by the mode of composition. Daiuto (1986), investigating draft
editing and revision quality, found that high school student writors
Business Communication Quality • Pearce/Barker
143
corrected more errors when using a word processor than when using pen
and paper. Quality ratings on the draft texts were h i ^ e r for the pen and
paper compositions, but the computer texts contained more revisions.
To summarize the current status of the research findings, diverse
designs and methodologies have been used, so it is difficult to compare
the various fmdings. Further, definitions of quality have varied greatly,
very small sample sizes have been frequent, and measurements of
writing quality have been primarily holistic ratings or ratings based on
analytical scales. For the most part, subjects have been high school or
college basic English students. Other researchers have su^iested that a
more complex array of factors beyond writing method may affect writing
quality, such as the complex interaction of physical and cognitive processes (Aschauer & White, 1984; Daiute, 1986; Herrmann, 1987; Hooper,
1987).
The research question directing this study was: Is there a quality
difference between handwritten reports and those written on computers
for precisely defined and measured quality factors using upper division
college students as subjects?
METHODOLOGY
All 266 students enrolled in 10 sections of a required undergraduate
business communication course at a msgor mid-Atlantic university were
target participants for the study. Only juniors and seniors may take Hie
course, prerequisites for which are junior standing and completion of two
introductory written composition courses.
Subjects who were present on the first two consecutive class days of
the fall semester comprised the sample. First day participants numbered
198, while second day participants numbered 204. Of these, 182 attended
both days and could therefore provide comparative writing samples. Of
this number, 22 were eliminated fi-om the study for failing to follow
directions or submitting incomplete writing samples. As a result, returns
from 160 subjects, 60.15 percent ofthe population, were analyzed. This
percentage is not deemed unusual for the first week of classes since
students actively add and drop classes at ihis time. Additionally, some
students assume that introductory information with minimal course
content will be covered during the initial classes and therefore do not
attend. Despite these constraints, for the purpose of this study, it was
necessary to collect the data during the first week, before any course
content was delivered.
144
The Journal of Business Communication
28:2:Spring 1991
Fifty-six percent (n = 89) of the subjects were females and 44 percent
(n = 71) were males. The majority (71 percent, n = 114) of the subjects
were ages 18 to 22, 15 percent (n = 25) were ages 23 to 28, 7 percent (n
= 11) were 29 to 34, 3 percent (n = 5) were 35 to 40, and 3 percent (n =
5) were over 40. Eighty percent (n = 129) of the subjects were white, 14
percent (n = 23) were black, 4 percent (n = 7) were Asian or Pacific
Islanders, and 0.6 percent (n = 1) were American Indian or Alaskan
Native. All subjects were upper division students, with 82 percent (n =
132) being juniors and 17 percent (n = 28) being seniors. Fi%-seven
percent (n = 92) had some experience using a computer, 21 percent (n =
34) had little to no experience, and 21 percent (n = 34) had much to a
high level of experience. In terms of experience using word processing
programs, 21 percent (n = 31) had no experience, 28 percent (n = 42) had
a httle experience, 36 percent (n = 53) had some experience, and 15
percent (n = 21) had much to a high level of experience. As to keyboarding
or typing experience, 10 percent (n = 17) indicated no experience, 11
percent (n = 19) had little experience, 39 percent (n = 63) had some
experience, and 39 percent (n = 63) had much to a high level of experience.
Data Collection
Two business report writing cases developed by one of the researchers
provided the framework for the data collection. Each case consisted ofa
business scenario in response to which subjects were to compose short
reports, within parameters given in a set of written instructions. Students were to write the text for a short report based on facts provided in
each case without regard for headings or format considerations. Subjects
were instructed to add relevant information to the case as needed; and
to accommodate differences in preknowledge of the subject matter of the
case, subjects were instructed that the document produced would be
evaluated for writing quality but not for factual accuracy. Also, the
subjects were told to correct their language (writing) and grammatical
errors as they saw fit. Both cases were analyzed for appropriateness and
parallel difficulty by six university professors ofbusiness communication
working independently, and revisions were made accordingly.
Research Design
A cross-over design was used in this investigation of the effect of
writing methods on writing quality. Since the order in which participants
completed the two case studies might have had an effect on writing
quality, order was included as an independent variable. The treatment
Business Communication Quality • Pearce/Barker
145
variable, writing method, has two levels: computer written and handwritten. The dependent variable, quality, has 10 levels addressing both
v/riting and grammatical errors. These levels are readability, passive
construction, use of prepositions, trite expressions, wordy expressions,
and redundant expressions, all of which represent writing errors; and
capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and vague adverbs, which represent grammatical errors.
Procedures
This study was completed during the first two class sessions, and
students were told that this project was part of the standard course
requirements and would count as part of their course grade. Each subject
was randomly assigned to one of the two groups. One group completed
the handwritten case first, followed by the computer written case the
following day. The other group completed the computer written case first,
followed by the handwritten case the following class day. Handwritten
reports were completed in the classroom, while computer written reports
were completed in a university computer laboratory. All subjects used
WordPerfect software on IBM compatible microcomputers and were
instructed not to use dictionaries or any other writing or grammatical
aids.
A management professor, one of the researchers, administered the
written cases to both groups. Although the possibility of experimenter
bias exists, the use of written administrative procedures minimized that
possibility. An information systems professor administered the computer written cases to both groups, also following written instructions.
Only questions regarding computer operating mechanics were
answered. Students did not ask either case administrator any questions
about the cases.
Handwritten reports of <he cases were entered into the computer for
analysis. Both the handwritten and computer written reports were
scored for errors using the Grammatik II (1986) software program. While
Grammatik provides 14 quality measures, the analysis was limited to
10 measures deemed most important by the previously mentioned
professors. This action was necessary because the Grammatik program
will review no more than ten factors in a document
Analysis of variance with repeated measures was performed to investigate the effect of writing method and order of case completion on the
ten indicators of quality.
146
The Journal (^Business Communication
28:2:Spring 1991
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the means for the four types of grammatical errors
measured. A statistically significant difference (p < .05) was found
between computer written and handwritten reports for punctuation,
with handwritten reports containing more punctuation errors (M =
.1500) than those written on the computer (M = .0500). No significant
differences were found between writing methods for errors in capitalization, spelling, and use of vague adverbs.
Table 1
Grammatical Error Means for Writing Method
and Case Completion Order
Error
Writing Method
Computer Hand
Completion Order
First
Second
Capitalization
Punctuation
Spelling
Vague Adverbs
.1062
.0500*
.0000
.0937
.1625
.0312*
.0062
.1125
.1687
.1500*
.0125
.1125
.1125
.1687*
.0062
.0937
Note, n = 160.
*p < .05
A statistically significant difference (p < .05) was found for punctuation errors between reports completed first and those completed second.
More punctuation errors were made on reports completed second (Af =
.1687) than on the initial reports (M = .0312). No significant differences
were found in order of completion for errors in capitalization, spelling,
and use of vague adverbs.
Table 2 shows the means for the six types of writing errors measured.
A statistically significant difference (p < .05) was found between computer written and handwritten reports for readability, passive construction, and trite expressions. The computer written reports were easier to
read (M = 56.4125) but contained more passive construction (Af =
24.0060) and trite expressions (Af = .7000) than the handwritten reports
(readability, M = 53.0750; passive construction, M = 16.3690; trite
expressions, M = .2125). No statistically significant differences between
writing methods were found for errors in use of prepositions, wordy
expressions, or redundant expressions.
Statistically significant differences between reports completed first
and second were found for readability, passive construction, and use of
prepositions. Reports completed first were more difficult to read (Af =
Business Communication Quality • Pearce/Barker
147
Table 2
Writing Error Means for Writing Method and Case Completion Order
Error
Writing Method
Computer
Hand
Completion Order
First
Second
Readability
Passive
Preposition
Trite
Wordy
Redundant
56.4125*
24.0060*
12.9063
.7000*
.1562
.0062
53.0750*
17.8000*
11.8375*
.4750
.1000
.0000
53.0750*
16.3690*
12.1250
.2125*
.1062
.0000
52.9812*
22.5750*
13.1937*
.4375
.0062
.0062
Note, n = 160.
*p< .05
53.0750) than reports completod second (Af = 52.9812). However, initial
reports contained fewer instances of passive construction (Af = 17.8000)
and fewer prepositions (Af = 11.8375) than did the reports completod
second (passive construction, M = 22.5750; prepositions, Af = 13.1937).
No significant differences were found in order of report completion for
trite, wordy, or redimdant expressions.
Since the cross-over design was used in this analysis, tosting for
intoraction effects was not necessary (Cochran & Cox, 1954).
DISCUSSION
The data revealed two general findings regarding differences in
quality between handwritton and computor writton reports. First, the
ten variables imder scrutiny showed more similarities than dissimilarities as six of the tosts were not significant. Likewise, six of the
ton tosts for differences in the order in which subjects wroto the cases
were not significant Second, the results were mixed to the extont that
no trends were revealed. Mixed results were also reported by Hooper
(1987) and Tone and Winchestor (1988) in their critical reviews. And
although Bemhardt et al. (1989), Collier (1983a), Etohison (1985), Maik
(1987), McCalUstor and Louth (1988), and McCuthen et al. (1987)
reportod findings favoring computor writton aver handwritton documents, Daiuto (1986) found handwritton texts superior, while Collier
(1983b) and Hawisher (1987) reported no differences in quality.
Two m^jor points should be considered when evaluating the definitiveness of the reported studies. First, the subjective nature of the
measurements and weaknesses in the design or execution render the
148
The Joumal of Business Communication
28:2:Spring 1991
results questionable (Bemhardt et a l , 1989; Collier, 1983a, 1983b;
Etchison, 1985; Maik, 1987; McCallister & Louth, 1988). Even in instances where raters were trained and acceptable inter-rater reliability
coefficients were established (Bemhardt et al., 1989; Collier 1983a,
1983b; Daiute, 1986; Etchison, 1985; Hawisher, 1986; McCallister &
Louth, 1988), scoring consistency does not necessarily indicate valid
assessment of the target variables. Evidence of this effect is indicated by
the confounding variables extant in studies by Collier (1983a), Etchison
(1985), Daiute (1986), and Hawisher (1987). The second limiting point is
that often quality appeared to be but a secondary measure (Daiute, 1986;
Kurth, 1987; Maik, 1987; Lutz, 1987; Haas, 1989)
The finding that computer written reports contained fewer punctuation errors is partially corroborated by McCuthen et al. (1987), whose
subjects consulted an interactive editor for grammatical rules (which
included punctuation) as they wrote. Further indirect support is
evidenced in the Bemhardt et al. (1989) finding that computer written
compositions were superior; following conventions, which included
punctuation, was one of the minor variables rated. In contrast, Hawisher
(1987) found that pen and typewriter produced essays were comparable
to those written by computer; punctuation was a minor variable rated in
this study as well.
Computer written reports were found to be easier to read according
to Flesch's readability formula (Flesch, 1949), but handwritten reports
contained fewer instances of passive construction and fewer trite expressions. As far as can be determined, only Sterkel et al. (1986) have
measured readability, and that was for the work of experimental groups
before revisions were made.
The data showed that reports written first contained fewer pimctuation errors, were easier to read, and contained fewer instances of passive
construction and fewer prepositions than those written second. However,
the meaning of these results is difficult to determine given the available
data. Fatigue could not have played a part, for example, because a full
day lapsed between writing the first and second reports. Also, had
experience played a part, it would have favored the second writing, not
the first. Possibly, the subjects wrote the first report more deliberately,
but that would conflict with Hawisher's (1987) assertion that qixaUty
improved from the first to final drafts.
In several ways, the present study appears to be an initial investigation into certain areas of computer writing research. For example, except
for Sterkel et al. (1986), this appears to be the first specific study of
business writing qualities. To distinguish business writing from other
Business Communication Quality • Pearce/Barker
149
types of transactional writing may be important because the contexts
can differ. For example, business writing is often done under time
pressures that make it difficult to prepare successive revisions of documents (Gilsdorf, 1987), an activity ofton encouraged when students writo
on a computor, and required in process-centored instruction. Therefore,
the context in which business managers work appears to make it
desirable for business communication students who are preparing for
managerial positions to practice preparing initial drafts for evaluation
with no opportunity for revision, as was done in the present study.
The litorature review did not reveal any other studies using passive
construction or trito expressions as measvu-es of quality, or using upper
division undergraduatos as subjects. As a result, no comparisons on
these factors are possible.
Rather than using raters, this study employed a computor toxt
analysis program to measure quality after the subjects wroto their
documents. While Storkel et al. (1986) used a similar program, the
quality measure was grades received in the course. Further, the present
study is one of the first to measure basic quality variables as independent
measures, as opposed to holistic measures or measures using analytical
scales. While Etohison (1985) did measure syntax variables independently, they are unlike the basic writing variables measured in the
present study.
CONCLUSION
In the larger view, the results of the present study do not support a
conclusion that basic writing quality will improve when a computor is
used. Rather, the evidence appears to support Hooper's (1987) report of
conflicting results and Hawisher's (1987) conclusion that the writing tool
is not the variable that influences success.
Given the mixed results concerning the effects of computor writing on
quality, the findings of Bemhardt et al. (1989) that the toacher has the
greatost effect on performance perhaps bears further scrutiny. Were that
the case, toacher selection and training could be productive avenues for
further investigation.
The current research on computer writing strongly supports
Hawisher's (1986) observation that poorly conceived and incomparable
research designs make it difficult to generalize. In fact, possibly current
research has produced confounding results at least partly because the
measuring devices are subjective and imprecise. If so, studies of writing
quality that focus on such lower order variables as syntax, grammatical
150
The Journal of Business Communication
28:2:Spring 1991
errors, and writing errors, where objective measures can be taken, may
prove to be productive. If these variables are the building blocks of
writing quality, study of lower order variables could lead to a better
understanding ofmiddle order effects such as those measured by analytical scales and holistic ratings.
Another promising avenue for further investigation is to evaluate
writers themselves along with evaluating the documents they write.
Little research thus far has focused on demographic variables that may
explain differences in writing quality. In fact, a limitation ofthe present
study is the variability in computer experience and typing ability. Future
studies might focus on the effects of such factors.
REFERENCES
Aschauer, M., & White, F. (1984, February). Towards a marriage of two minds:
The word processor and natural habits of thought in the discovery stage of
composing. Pajier presented at the Spring Conference of the Delaware
Valley Writing Council and ^^llanova Universit3^s English Department,
Villanova, PA.
Bauer, R. (1986). Gram.matik H: The writing analyst. San Francisco: Reference
Software, Inc.
Bemhardt, S. A , Edwards, P., & Wojahn, P. (1989). Iteaching college cranposition with computers. Written Communication, 6(1), 108-133.
Cochran, D. S., Giallourakis, M. C , & Shim, J. P. (1986). PCs in the BC
classroom: Present and future perception. The Bulletin ofthe Association
for Business Communication, 49(1), 7-11.
Cochran, W. G., & Cox, G. M. (1954). Experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Collier, R. (1983a). The effects of a computer-based text-editor on the creativity
and writing skills of community college composition students: A pilot study.
Alberta, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 246 430)
Collier, R. (1983b). The word processor and revision strategies. College Composition and Communication, 35,149-155.
Cortese, J. G. (1989). Computer applications in teaching business and professional writing courses in four-year colleges: Research suggesting curricular changes. The Bulletin of the Association for Business
Communication, 42(4), 3-5.
Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from
studies with computers. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 20(2), 141-159.
Etchison, C. (1985). A comparative study ofthe quality and syntax of compositions by first year college students using handwriting and word processing.
Glenville, WV: Glenville State College. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 282 215)
Business Communication Quality • Pearce/Barker
151
Flesch, R. (1949). The art of readable writing. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Gilsdorf, J. W. (1987). More "process": Aluxury? an illusion? a millstone? The
Journal of Business Communication, 24(1), 27-28.
Haas, C. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects
of word processing on planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(2),
181-207.
Hawisher, G. (1986). Studies in word processing. Computers and Composition,
4,6-31.
Hawisher, G. (1987). The effects of word processing on the revision strategies
of college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 145-159.
Herrmann, A. W. (1987, December). Research into writing and computers:
Viewing the gestalt. Paper presented at the Modem Language Association
Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Hooper, S. C. (1987). Using word processors in high school and college writing
instruction: A critical review ofcurrent literature. Tbwson, MD: Calvert Hall
College Prep High School. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
286 203)
Kurth, R. J. (1987, April). Word processing and composition revision strategies.
Papier presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Washington, DC.
Lutz, J. A. (1987). A study of professional and experienced writers revising
and editing at the computer and with pen and paper. Research in ttie
Teaching of English, 21(4), 398-421.
Maik, T. A. (1987). Word processing in the business writing classroom: Applications and reactions. The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 50(4), 4-6.
McCallister, C, & Louth, R. (1988). The effect of word processing on the quality
of basic writers' revisions. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(4),
417-427.
McCuthen, D., Hull, G. A , & Smith, W. L. (1987). Editing strategies and error
correction in basic writing. ]^itten Communication, 4(2), 139-154.
Munter, M. (1986). Using the computer in business communication courses.
The Journal of Business Communication, 23(1), 31-42.
Sterkel, K., Johnson, M., & Sjogren, D. (1986). Textual analysis with computers
to improve the writing skills of business communication students. The
Journal of Business Comm.unication, 23(1), 43-61.
Tbne, B., & Winchester, D. (1988). Computer-assisted writing instruction.
ERIC DIGEST: Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills
(Report No. 2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 130)
—Accepted by NLR, 3/26/90
Final version received 5/21/90