Why Students Can't Write: Technology and the Death of the Written Word

Though I retired from teaching five years ago and sometimes miss the challenge, as well as the interaction with students and the feeling of accomplishment I experienced when I realized that I had made a positive difference in a student’s life, I do not—in any way, shape, or form—miss grading papers. Of course, I think grading papers is the bane of every teacher’s existence. I also cannot help but think that today, in the Age of Technology, grading papers is in many ways more demanding for teachers than it was in the past. Why? Well, it’s because computers have made students both lazy and dependent, and laziness mixed with dependency creates a lethal brew, at least when it comes to writing. Then again, this “malady” is apparent in not only the declining quality of student writing but that of the general population as well.   

Don’t get me wrong. Obviously I own a computer, and I will admit that I absolutely adore its word-processing program. But then, I grew up during the Dark Ages—that technology-devoid era when people had to rely upon an instrument called a typewriter, at least they did if they did not wish to write everything by hand.  The first typewriter I ever owned was a manually operated Royal typewriter, a huge gray steel thing that weighed as much as a VW Beetle, so just imagine how thrilled I was years later when I became the proud owner of a Brother electric typewriter, which was much lighter and even had its own carrying case.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with typewriters, allow me enlighten you: typewriters, while an improvement over having to write by hand, were nothing like the word-processing programs we have today, and for several reasons.  

• First, if you were careless and created typos, either you had to use Whiteout (a thick, gooey white concoction, rather like Elmer’s Glue, but without the adhesive quality), which could leave the document looking quite messy if you weren’t extremely careful; or else you had to retype the entire page, praying all the while that you did not create yet another typo in the process.
• Second, you could not cut text, which meant if you decided to delete even one word, let along a sentence or, heaven forbid, a paragraph, you had to retype the entire document.
• Third, neither could you copy and paste; therefore, if you wished to make significant changes to whatever you were writing, again you had to retype the complete document, whether it was a memo, letter, paper, article, or 500-page manuscript.
• Fourth, typewriters did not provide their users with either Grammar Check or Spell Check. As a result, the user had to possess at least some rudimentary knowledge of spelling as well as the rules of grammar, that is, unless the user didn’t care if he or she came across as a total ignoramus to readers of the typewritten document.

And that brings me back to computers. We writers today, unlike in the past, have all these amazing tools at our disposal. We can correct typos with a keystroke or two. We can cut, copy, and paste, thus deleting or adding or even relocating entire passages and, in the process, saving ourselves valuable time. Plus, we can use Grammar Check and Spell Check to help ensure that we come across to readers as at least semi-literate. 

The problem, however, as I said in the beginning, is that even with all these amazing tools at our disposal, some writers have allowed themselves to become too dependent upon technology and, in the process, also become downright lazy. That is exactly why I would see statements like the following in student papers:

1. In the United States if we speak out against the government, we don’t have to worry about being shipped off to Suburbia. (Did the student perhaps mean Siberia?)
2. I once read that most of Egyptian inhabitants were temporary structures that were rebuilt during the next Pariah’s rein. (I think perhaps the student meant “habitats” or perhaps “habitations,” as well as “Pharaoh’s reign.”)
3. Did you also know that the Romans also invited metal horseshoes? (Invited? Invited the horseshoes where? To dinner or perhaps a movie? Then again, I think the student probably meant that the Romans “invented” metal horseshoes.)
4. Is there a way to say that I don’t expect U to whole this against the entrée paragraph that I write on my compassion? (I really don’t even know where to begin when it comes to deciphering this question. Do you?)
5. Mother Teresa was of Spinach heritage. (Spinach? Obviously, the student meant “Spanish,” but still, “Spinach”?)

Yes, technology is a time-and-labor saver. Yes, word-processing programs are amazing tools. And, yes, being a writer, I am just as dependent upon my computer as anyone else and probably far more dependent than the majority of people. However, unlike many people, I realize that a word-processing program is not infallible. It is, in fact, merely a computerized system and, therefore, inherently flawed. It does not possess eyes. It certainly does not possess a brain. And that is why it is my responsibility, as the writer, to proofread and then edit what I have written. I must ask myself if it is coherent, logical, and intelligible. Are there careless errors that might detract or else totally confuse the reader? Are the words the right words, or are they words I did not intend to use at all? Will readers understand the point I am attempting to make or wander about in a desert of incoherence and ambiguity, one that I created? Will they view me as being someone literate and at least fairly well-educated, or will readers scratch their heads and mumble, “What on Earth is this moron trying to say?”