Word Processing and the Keyboard: Comparative Effects of Transcription on Achievement

Abstract

Many comparisons of word processing and handwriting have been made; the most common comparisons measured differences in the quality of writing produced by students. Although such studies have produced many valuable insights into the use of word processors, they have produced mixed findings regarding comparisons of writing quality. Researchers often made positive statements about word processors, but equally as often they failed to return empirical proof of the superiority of one mode of writing over the other. With time, studies became increasingly rigorous in some respects, but in other respects they remained fundamentally flawed, losing some of their value for decision making on the use of computers in the curriculum. These perceived flaws included a failure to make the comparison between word processing and handwriting, a like-to-like comparison in all respects but those similarities under specific investigation. For example, studies have failed to consider the degree of familiarity students have with the technology of each mode of writing and the proficiency attained in the use of either mode. Whereas some students struggle with the physical burden of handwriting and thrive in the use of the keyboard, others are competent with pen and paper and never approach that same degree of competence on the computer. As a result, although ostensibly comparing the facilities of the two technologies, researchers ultimately compared students’ familiarity with and expertise on those facilities rather than the facilities themselves. This study examines the effect of one particular flaw in previous studies: the absence of a common baseline for transcription rate.