Word Processors Negatively Affect Writing Quality : A Comparison with Transgenic Crops

Zhao and Frank demonstrated “an ecological perspective can provide a powerful analytical framework for understanding technology uses in schools” [1]. This essay employs an ecological metaphor to illustrate the impact of using word processing to teach writing. This paper will compare the affects of planting genetically modified crops to the impacts of using word processors in education. Although their contexts are particularly different, scientists and consumers consider both revolutionary in their fields, but their use has particularly adverse consequences. This paper discusses similarities regarding their advantages, followed by parallels in their disadvantages. Consequently, this comparison establishes the need to moderate use of word processing software in schools. 1. Context Transgenic crops currently account for over 200 million acres of agricultural land [2]. In the mid-1990s, scientists believed them to be an advantageous technological advancement [3]. Genetically modified crops are plants used in agriculture that scientists genetically altered to incorporate advantageous characteristics in their DNA [4]. These genes enable the crops to resist destructive insects and plants, increase agricultural yields and provide nutritional enhancements [4, 5, 6]. However, research has now demonstrated that they have significant negative impacts, particularly adverse health effects, herbicide-resistance and loss of biodiversity. Given their abundance, dispersing capabilities and persistence, their negative affects have been especially difficult to mitigate. Similar to genetically modified crops, researchers thought word processors were a benign technological development. Word processors, such as Microsoft Word, Corel WordPerfect and Pages, are computer software applications used to create, revise, format and print text documents [7]. Consumers perceive them as an innovative solution to writing constraints. People use word processors in a variety of contexts, including educational settings. This is because they eliminate the need to recopy text, facilitate the development of longer documents and produce aesthetically pleasing hardcopies [8]. However, their use decreases revision, increases spelling errors and reduces handwriting use [9, 10, 11]. It is, therefore, imperative that teachers moderate use of word processors. Otherwise, their impact on student writing capabilities will be extensive and unmanageable, similar to the repercussions of genetically modified crops. 2. Positive effects New technologies can offer a variety of benefits that improve current practices. In their respective domains, genetically modified crops and word processors decrease process requirements, increase production and improve outcome quality. 2.1. Process reduction Advancements in genetic engineering enabled the development of transgenic crops that are resistant to undesirable insects and plants. This, thereby, reduces the need for pesticides and herbicides. “GM soybean, oil seed rape, cotton and maize varieties modified for herbicide tolerance and insect protected GM varieties of cotton reduced pesticide use by a total of 22.3 million kg” [12]. There are health benefits to decreasing the application of chemicals. The World Health Organization demonstrated there are 500,000 pesticide-related poisonings annually and approximately 5,000 of these are fatal [4, 12]. There are also economic advantages. Farmers not only save the direct costs of purchasing chemicals, but also their application costs. Every 75 hectors of agricultural land requires 205 liters of diesel for spraying [12]. This is equivalent to C$5 million in savings for farmers annually [13]. Carbon sequestration also has environmental benefits because the machinery used for chemical application does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [4]. Moreover, agricultural practices do not require raw materials and resources for manufacturing pesticides and herbicides, thereby increasing sustainability [4]. Lindsay Noel et al ,Int.J.Computer Technology & Applications,Vol 4 (1),104-107 IJCTA | Jan-Feb 2013 Available online@www.ijcta. com 104 ISSN:2229-6093