Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 33–63 | Cite as

The roles of handwriting and keyboarding in writing: a meta-analytic review

  • Luxi FengEmail author
  • Amanda Lindner
  • Xuejun Ryan Ji
  • R. Malatesha Joshi
Article

Abstract

According to the simple view of writing (Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards, 2002), the two important components of transcription in writing are handwriting and keyboarding, the third one being spelling. The purpose of this paper is to review the contribution of two writing modes—handwriting and keyboarding to writing performance. In the first section, the contribution of handwriting fluency to writing performance was explored through moderator analyses. We found that handwriting fluency contributes to writing significantly and consistently, and significantly contributes to specific writing measures (e.g., writing quality, writing fluency, substantive quality). We then explored the relationship between handwriting and keyboarding, and compared their contributions to writing. Results indicated that performance on fluency of handwriting and keyboarding were significantly related, particularly on speed. Writing qualities under each mode were relatively competitive; however, keyboarding allows for faster writing. The findings from the two sections emphasized the importance of handwriting on writing development even though keyboarding is accessible.

Keywords

Handwriting Writing Keyboarding Meta-analysis 

References

  1. Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary- and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 478–508. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. *Babayigit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling, and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 539–568. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9173-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, A., Stainthorp, R., Henderson, S., & Scheib, B. (2006). Handwriting policy and practice in English primary schools. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  4. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 185–200. doi: 10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berninger, V. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 65–84. doi: 10.1097/00011363-200020040-00007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Graham, S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 39–56. doi: 10.1177/002221940203500104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. *Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 123–141. doi: 10.2307/27740364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Jones, J., Wolf, B. J., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., et al. (2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing, reading, listening, and speaking connections; three letter-writing modes; and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 61–92. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2901_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Thomson, J. B., & Raskind, W. H. (2001). Language phenotype for reading and writing disability: A family approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 59–106. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0501_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berninger, V. W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems. Research into practice. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 345–363). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Berninger, V. W., Cartwright, A. C., Yates, C. M., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161–196. doi: 10.1007/BF01026911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berninger, V. W., & Graham, S. (1998). Language by hand: A synthesis of a decade of research on handwriting. Handwriting Review, 12, 11–25.Google Scholar
  13. Berninger, V. W., Mizokawa, D. T., & Bragg, R. (1991). The theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57–79. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(91)90016-K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. C. Butterfield (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice, vol. 2: Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–82). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  15. Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., Rogan, L., et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting fluency problems in beginning writing: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. *Berninger, V. W., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. D. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257–280. doi: 10.1007/BF01027151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2 [software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.Google Scholar
  18. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brown, C. M. (1988). Comparison of typing and handwriting in “two-finger typists”. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 32, 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. *Christensen, C. A. (2004). Relationship between orthographic-motor integration and computer use for the production of creative and well-structured written text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 551–564. doi: 10.1348/0007099042376373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Christensen, C. A. (2009). The critical role handwriting plays in the ability to produce high-quality written text. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 284–299). London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. *Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479–492. doi: 10.1348/000709906X116768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dinehart, L. H. (2015). Handwriting in early childhood education: Current research and future implications. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15, 97–118. doi: 10.1177/1468798414522825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. *Drijbooms, E., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). The contribution of executive functions to narrative writing in fourth grade children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9558-z.Google Scholar
  25. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98. doi: 10.2307/2669529.Google Scholar
  26. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49, 312–317. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00312.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84, 74–111. doi: 10.3102/0034654313499616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gopher, D., & Raij, D. (1988). Typing with a two-handed chord keyboard: Will the QWERTY become obsolete? IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18, 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graham, S. (1986). A review of handwriting scales and factors that contribute to variability in handwriting scores. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 63–71. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(86)90043-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). Development of handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1–9. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42–52. doi: 10.1080/00220679809597574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620–635. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
  36. Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 13, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7–87. doi: 10.1007/BF01761831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hamstra-Bletz, L., & Blote, A. (1993). A longitudinal study on dysgraphic handwriting in primary school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 689–699. doi: 10.1177/002221949302601007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harrington, S., Shermis, M. D., & Rollins, A. L. (2000). The influence of word processing on English placement test results. Computers and Composition, 17, 197–210. doi: 10.1016/S8755-4615(00)00029-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Mercer, C. D. (2005). Writing prompts: The role of various priming conditions on the compositional fluency of developing writers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 473–495. doi: 10.1007/s11145-004-7042-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. *Jalbert, R. (2009). Essay quality of adolescents with learning disabilities: Does the medium improve the message? Master’s Thesis, Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (MS26445).Google Scholar
  43. *Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Karlsdottir, R., & Stefansson, T. (2002). Problems in developing functional handwriting (monograph supplement 1-V94). Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 623–662. doi: 10.2466/PMS.94.2.623-662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kay, R., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Exploring the benefits and challenges of using laptop computers in higher education classrooms: A formative analysis. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37, 1–18. doi: 10.21432/T2S598.Google Scholar
  46. Kent, S. C., & Wanzek, J. (2016). The relationship between component skills and writing quality and production across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last 25 years. Review of Educational Research, 86, 570–601. doi: 10.3102/0034654315619491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. *Kent, S., Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Al Otaiba, S., & Kim, Y. S. (2014). Writing fluency and quality in kindergarten and first grade: The role of attention, reading, transcription, and oral language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1163–1188. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9480-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J., Greulich, L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 517–525. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. *Kim, Y. S., Park, C. H., & Park, Y. (2013). Is academic language use a separate dimension in beginning writing? Evidence from Korean. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 8–15. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King, F. J., Rohani, F., Sanfilippo, C., & White, N. (2008). Effects of handwritten versus computer-written modes of communication on the quality of student essays. Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment (CALA Report).Google Scholar
  51. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee, H. K. (2004). A comparative study of ESL writers’ performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered writing test. Assessing Writing, 9, 4–26. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. López-López, J. A., Viechtbauer, W., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2010). Comparing the performance of alternative statistical tests for moderators in mixed-effects meta-regression models. 5th annual meeting of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology, Cartagena, Spain.Google Scholar
  55. Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1995). Informal assessment and instruction in written language: A practitioner’s guide for students with learning disabilities. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  56. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 299–325. doi: 10.1007/BF01464076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3501_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S. H., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 256–266. doi: 10.1207/sldrp1404_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McHale, K., & Cermak, S. A. (1992). Fine motor activities in elementary school: Preliminary findings and provisional implications for children with fine motor problems. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. *Medwell, J., Strand, S., & Wray, D. (2009). The links between handwriting and composing for Y6 children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 329–344. doi: 10.1080/03057640903103728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. *Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2014). Handwriting automaticity: The search for performance thresholds. Language and Education, 28, 34–51. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2013.763819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168. doi: 10.1177/0956797614524581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. *Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 3–26. doi: 10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. *Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between the discourse knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 37–50. doi: 10.1037/a0013462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. *Perminger, F., Weiss, P. L., & Weintraub, N. (2004). Predicting occupational performance: Handwriting versus keyboarding. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 193–201. doi: 10.5014/ajot.58.2.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Puranik, C. S., & AlOtaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1523–1546. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9331-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. *Roger, J., & Case-Smith, J. (2002). Relationships between handwriting and keyboarding performance of sixth-grade students. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 34–39. doi: 10.5014/ajot.56.1.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sandler, A. D., Watson, T. E., Footo, M., Levine, M. D., Coleman, W. L., & Hooper, S. R. (1992). Neurodevelopmental study of writing disorders in middle childhood. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 13, 17–23.Google Scholar
  69. Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2015). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 1–41. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9335-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schwabe, G., & Göth, C. (2005). Mobile learning with a mobile game: Design and motivational effects. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 21, 204–216. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00128.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sormunen, C. (1993). Learning style: An analysis of factors affecting keyboarding achievement of elementary school students. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 35, 26–38.Google Scholar
  72. SPSS, IBM. (2011). IBM SPSS statistics base 20 [software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  73. Sudsawad, P. (1999). Teacher referrals of poor handwriting students. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
  74. Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences in children’s working memory and writing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358–385. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1996.0054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Tipton, E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 13–30. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vyatkina, N. (2012). The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 576–598. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01401.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. *Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., et al. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 203–220. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watanabe, L. M., & Hall-Kenyon, K. M. (2011). Improving young children’s writing: The influence of story structure on kindergartners’ writing complexity. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 272–293. doi: 10.1080/19388071.2010.514035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. *Weintraub, N., Gilmour-Grill, N., & Weiss, P. L. (2010). Relationship between handwriting and keyboarding performance among fast and slow adult keyboarders. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 123–132. doi: 10.5014/ajot.64.1.123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (2000). The contribution of gender, orthographic, finger function, and visual-motor processes to the prediction of handwriting status. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 20, 121–140. doi: 10.1177/153944920002000203.Google Scholar
  81. Wood, J. M. (2000). A marriage waiting to happen: Computers and process writing. Boston, MA: Education Development Center. Retrieved from http://www-tc.pbs.org/teacherline/courses/rdla215/docs/wood_marriagewaiting.pdf.
  82. Yamamato, K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom: Is it worth the hassle? Journal of Legal Education, 57, 477–520.Google Scholar
  83. *Yan, C., McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Zhang, J., Wong, A., & Shu, H. (2012). Writing quality in Chinese children: Speed and fluency matter. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1499–1521. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9330-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhu, Y., Mark Shum, S. K., Brian Tse, S. K., & Liu, J. J. (2016). Word-processor or pencil-and-paper? A comparison of students’ writing in Chinese as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29, 596–617. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.1000932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.4232 Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations