When &GGFDUTPG5FDIOPMPHZPO$SJUJDBM5IJOLJOHBOE&TTBZ8SJUJOH"NPOH(JGUFE"EPMFTDFOUT

In this time of technology assisted learning, students are not only familiar with how to use a computer, but they are also quite knowledgeable about the variety of tasks that can be enhanced through computer applications. Technology-ﬂuent students carry their laptops to class to facilitate note taking and to add reﬂections during class in the most efﬁcient manner they can manage. In addition, they use the Internet to solve problems, as well as to ﬁnd necessary research information for support in papers and projects. Schools that provide access to computers often incorporate trips to computer labs or have computers available in the classroom as part of the writing process so that students can write their essays in school as regularly scheduled parts of classes. Those promoting computer use assume that computer use is natural and does not impede the thinking process; rather, it is seen as a fluid way to express thinking in a format that is easier to read and edit and gives more time for critical thinking (Hartley, 1993). It is important to consider whether ready access to com-puters actually enhances critical thinking or whether it merely provides students with a tool that helps them ﬁnish tasks quickly in a more acceptable, ﬁnished form without additional editing and revision. Whether this efﬁciency attenuates students’ critical thought processes that lead to revisions that ultimately promote quality in writing is a major consideration of this research project. $SJUJDBM5IJOLJOHBOE8SJUJOHIn considering the interface of critical thinking and writing, it is essential to examine ﬁrst the importance of each of these constructs and then the way they impact the education of high-ability adolescents. Scholars cite Socrates as the initiator of the art of critical thinking because of the importance he attributed to ideas and their role in direct-ing the conduct of everyday life. Certainly, the Socratic dialogues are excellent examples of critical thinking in action (Campossela, 1996). John Dewey, however, coined the term critical thinking in the 1930s, but preferred to call it reﬂective thinking, deﬁning it as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form4VNNFS$SJUJDBM5IJOLJOHJO&TTBZTof knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey, 1933, p. 9). Unlike many of the other developers of theo-ries of critical thinking, Dewey did not suggest a series of steps to use in the process of reﬂective thinking. Rather, he suggested that reflective thinking was a disposition that included living with uncertainty; that is, risk-taking. He stated, “One can think reﬂectively only when one is willing to endure suspense and to undergo the trouble of uncertainty” (p. 116). Dewey saw reﬂective thinking as a series of connections, of relationships, and he believed that “only when relationships are held in view does learning become more than a miscellaneous scrap bag” (p. 77). Continuing with the idea of reﬂection as a dimension of critical thinking, Ennis (1989) deﬁned critical think-ing as reasonable and reﬂective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do. Later, Paul (1996) argued, To become a critical thinker is to practice skills that enable one to start to take charge of the ideas that run one’s life. It is to think consciously and deliberately and skillfully in ways that transform oneself. It is to run for the ﬁrst time one’s inner workings and to understand the “system” one is running. It is to develop a mind that is analogous to the body of a person that is physically fit. It is like an excellent dancer who can perform any dance that can be choreographed. It is like a pup-pet that discovers the strings and ﬁgures out how to gain control of the way they are pulling. (p. 76) Indeed, both Ennis and Paul and Elder (2001) have empha-sized that a major facet of critical thinking involves examin-ing assumptions that underlie thought and action. Because assumptions provide the intellectual background for the rational pursuit of knowledge, examining them carefully and evaluating them thoughtfully are worthy pursuits in educational settings. In considering the process of critical thinking, Yanchar and Slife (2003) have suggested that it has two parts: the ﬁrst requires knowledge of the assump-tions and underlying worldviews of a particular discipline or ﬁeld of inquiry; the second involves developing ideas and assumptions that are alternatives to present views. Hence, the act of critical or reﬂective thinking seems to require time for it to transpire. In addition, focus is important. Halpern (1984) deﬁned critical thinking as directed thinking; that is, critical thinking has a purpose or a goal toward which it is directed. Halpern differentiated critical thinking from other types of thinking that are routine and do not focus on a purpose. Problem solving, making an inference, or making a decision require critical thinking. Additionally, Halpern has suggested that with hard work, practice, and determination, most people can improve the way they think—but they must approach each task with critical thinking. Writing is a vehicle through which students can readily express their critical thinking. McKeachie, Chism, Menges, Svinicki, and Weinstein (1994) argue that learning to think critically requires contemplation and communicating the thinking through talking, writing, or doing so that others can react to it. Indeed, writing seems to be an expression of critical thinking when students are trained to use a critical thinking method consistently in writing. Dixon (1996) found that evidence of critical thinking in writing increased after students were trained to use a strategy based on the Hegelian Dialectic. The Dialectic asks students to determine a thesis, counter with an antithesis, and consider both sides in determining a synthesis. Students in the experimental group used the process of the Hegelian Dialectic daily in discussion and writing during a 6-week period. Dixon found the experimental group scored signiﬁcantly higher on an analytical thinking measure adapted from the criteria used to score essays for the AP English Composition Examination. She concluded that writing was an excellent way to express critical thinking. In addition, the Hegelian Dialectic is a strategy that focuses on a thesis, a statement of a major idea that directs examination. The fact that writing ﬂows from a central thesis makes the Hegelian process a good ﬁt as an outcome for this strategy.Similarly, Dlugos (2003) has suggested modifying course content to explore how conventional student assign-ments can be expanded to include critical thinking and writing about one’s experiences, attitudes, and values rela-tive to the main concepts of the course. A central assump-tion of most instructors is that critical thinking about one’s experiences, attitudes, and values goes hand-in-hand with personal growth and development, and, therefore, writ-ing about these experiences is a chance to critically think about them. This writing about one’s own experiences seems more subjective than objective, more reﬂective than critical. However, the process of transforming even per-sonal thoughts into sources for critical thinking and thus writing about them adds a dimension of commitment to ideas that can be exposed to critical evaluation. $PNQVUFS"TTJTUFE8SJUJOHThe addition of computers to the composition class-room has long been heralded as a means of improving5IF+PVSOBMPG4FDPOEBSZ(JGUFE&EVDBUJPOwriting process by removing the barriers in revision that previously existed when paper and pencil were the only available tools used to compose.Those who write frequently see benefits in adding computers to the process, including enhanced organiza-tion, sharpened technical aspects of the composition (e.g., spelling and grammar checking), simpliﬁed revision and document merging, easier reading of early drafts of the revision process, and superior efﬁciency in creating the product (Hartley, 1993). However, research on the addi-tion of computers to the writing process has been far from comprehensive, and the work that has been conducted does not often lead to an easily identiﬁed pattern of results. For example, in one recent analysis, this disjointed pattern connected to computer use in writing led researchers to conclude that the effects were essentially random, indicat-ing that the use of computers had no meaningful inﬂu-ence on performance (Dybdahl, Shaw, & Blahous, 1997). On the other hand, our own interpretation of the body of research in question is that the quality and quantity of writ-ing produced by students using computers (as compared to handwritten products) are often driven by methodological variances that are inherent in educational research as gen-erated by several different groups of researchers. Sensitive to these methodological variances, there are meaningful patterns that are instructive and can provide guidance to the use of computers in students’ writing. Writing quality is one aspect of the writing process that has been studied in relation to the use of computers. In a counterbalanced repeated measures design examining within-subject differences in writing process and prod-uct, eighth-grade students received higher ratings on the quality of their writing when using computers to com-pose their essays (Owston, Murphy, & Wideman, 1992). Observation of students revealed that in the word process-ing condition, students were more likely to (a) continu-ally check spelling; (b) be in a constant state of revision and rewriting; (c) make use of “cut and paste” features, presumably to improve the ﬂow and organization of the paper; and (d) make more fine-grained, or microstruc-tural changes during the draft creation phases o