The Effect of Handwriting vs. Keyboard Writing on the Learners’ Reception of Words: Challenges and Benefits
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58213/ell.v2i2.28Keywords:
Handwriting, keyboard writing, ergonomics of writing, word memory, cognition, educational implications of digitization embodiedAbstract
In this study, we were interested in determining how writing mode affects word memory and recognition. Handwriting using a pen on paper, typing on a regular laptop keyboard, and typing on an iPad touch keyboard were chosen as the three writing modes. Using a completely counterbalanced and in-subjects experimental design, 36 women ranging in age from 19 to 54 participated. Participants were asked to jot down words that were read aloud to them in each of the three writing modes using a wordlist paradigm. By handwriting, on a keyboard, and on an iPad virtual keyboard, we assessed our participants' verbal recall and recognition abilities. For the purposes of this study, the data were analysed using non-parametric statistics. This study's findings show that writing modality has an overall effect, and further analyses show that participants had much stronger free recall of words written in the handwriting condition than words written in either of the keyboard conditions. The writing mode had no influence on recognition in this circumstance. According to the results shown in the graph below, handwriting may have certain cognitive advantages over writing on a computer keyboard when it comes to word recall components. Findings are investigated for their educational and cognitive value in this study.
References
• Alamargot, D., &Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0804-4
• Alamargot, D., &Chanquoy, L. (2012). Through the models of writing: Ten years after and visions for the future. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 567-572). New York: Psychology Press.
• Berninger, V. (Ed.). (2012). Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
• Calvo, P., &Gomila, A. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Chandler, D. (1992). The phenomenology of writing by hand. Digital creativity, 3(2 & 3), 65-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626269209408310
• Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0635
• Chen, Y., Fu, S., Iversen, S. D., Smith, S. M., & Matthews, P. M. (2002). Testing for dual brain processing routes in reading: a direct contrast of Chinese character and pinyin reading using fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(7), 1088-1098. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ 089892902320474535
• Cibulka, P. (2013). The writing hand: Some interactional workings of writing gestures in Japanese conversation. Gesture, 13(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.2.03cib
• Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioralsciencies: Routledge.
• Feder, K. P., &Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(4), 312-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1469-8749.2007.00312.x
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32(4), 365-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356600
• Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Fogassi, L., &Gallese, V. (2004). Action as a binding key to multisensory integration. In G. A. Calvert, C. Spence & B. E. Stein (Eds.), The handbook of multisensory processes (pp. 425-441). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108(3), 819-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.007
• Genlott, A. A., &Grönlund, Å. (2013). Improving literacy skills through learning reading by writing: The iWTR method presented and tested. Computers & Education, 67(0), 98-104. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.03.007
• Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844
• Goodnow, J. J., & Levine, R. A. (1973). “The grammar of action”: Sequence and syntax in children's copying. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 82-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010- 0285(73)90005-4
• Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• Hensher, P. (2012). The missing ink: The lost art of handwriting: Pan Macmillan.
• Jensenius, A. R. (2008). Action - sound: developing methods and tools to study music-related body movement. (No. 324), University of Oslo, Oslo.
• Johansson, R., Wengelin, Å., Johansson, V., &Holmqvist, K. (2010). Looking at the keyboard or the monitor: relationship with text production processes. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 835-851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9189-3
• Kato, C., Isoda, H., Takehara, Y., Matsuo, K., Moriya, T., &Nakai, T. (1999). Involvement of motor cortices in retrieval of kanji studied by functional MRI. Neuroreport, 10(6), 1335-1339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199904260-00033
• Keim, B. (2013). The science of handwriting. Scientific American Mind, 54-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanmind0913-54
• Kiefer, M., &Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Grounding the human conceptual system in perception, action, and internal states. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert& A. WHerwig (Eds.), Tutorials in action science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Kiefer, M., &Trumpp, N. M. (2012). Embodiment theory and education: The foundations of cognition in perception and action. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 15-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2012.07.002
• Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-6
• Longcamp, M., Anton, J.-L., Roth, M., &Velay, J.-L. (2003). Visual presentation of single letters activates a premotor area involved in writing. NeuroImage, 19(4), 1492-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00088-0
• Longcamp, M., Anton, J.-L., Roth, M., &Velay, J.-L. (2005). Premotor activations in response to visually presented single letters depend on the hand used to write: a study on left-handers. Neuropsychologia, 43(12), 1801-1809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2005.01.020
• Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J.-C., Anton, J.-L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., &Velay, J.-L. (2008). Learning through hand- or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: Behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(5), 802-815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20504
• Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J.-C., &Velay, J.-L. (2006). Remembering the orientation of newly learned characters depends on the associated writing knowledge: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Human Movement Science, 25(4-5), 646-656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2006.07.007
• Longcamp, M., Tanskanen, T., & Hari, R. (2006). The imprint of action: Motor cortex involvement in visual perception of handwritten letters. NeuroImage, 33(2), 681-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.042
• Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M.-T., &Velay, J.-L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 67-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019
• MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Press.
• Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory : a user's guide
• Mangen, A. (2013). “… scriptamanent”? The disappearing trace and the abstraction of inscription in digital writing. In K. E. a. F. Pytash, Richard E. (Ed.), Exploring technology for writing and writing instruction (pp. 100-114). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Mangen, A., &Velay, J.-L. (2010). Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing. In M. H. Zadeh (Ed.), Advances in Haptics (pp. 385-402). Vienna: IN-TECH web.
• Mangen, A., &Velay, J.-L. (2014). Cognitive implications of digital media. In M.-L. Ryan, L. Emerson & B. Robertson (Eds.), The Johns Hopkins Guide to digital humanities (pp. 72-78). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Mayes, A. R., & Roberts, N. (2001). Theories of episodic memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 356(1413), 1395-1408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0941
• McCullough, M. (1996). Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
• Naka, M., & Naoi, H. (1995). The effect of repeated writing on memory. Memory & cognition, 23(2), 201-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03197222
• Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I., Guez, J., & Dori, H. (1998). Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory: further support for an asymmetry. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 24(5), 1091-1104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1091
• Nickerson, R. S. (2005). Technology and Cognition Amplification. In R. J. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and Technology: The Impact of Tools on the Nature and Development of Human Abilities (pp. 3-27). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
• Olive, T., &Passerault, J.-M. (2012). The visuospatial dimension of writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 326-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451111
• Olivier, G., &Velay, J.-L. (2009). Visual objects can potentiate a grasping neural simulation which interferes with manual response execution. Acta Psychologica, 130, 147-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.11.004
• Preiss, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Intelligence and technology: the impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412984997
• Sasaki, M. (1987). Why do Japanese write characters in space? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10(2), 135-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016502548701000201
• Shapiro, L. A. (2010). Embodied cognition. New York: Routledge.
• Smoker, T. J., Murphy, C. E., & Rockwell, A. K. (2009). Comparing memory for handwriting versus typing. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154193120905302218
• Tan, L. H., Xu, M., Chang, C. Q., &Siok, W. T. (2013). China’s language input system in the digital age affects children’s reading development. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 1119-1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213586110
• Torrance, M., Alamargot, D., Castello, M., Ganier, F., Kruse, O., Mangen, A., . . . Van Waes, L. (Eds.). (2012). Learning to Write Effectively: Current Trends in European Research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Torrance, M., van Waes, L., & Galbraith, D. (Eds.). (2007). Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Trageton, A. (2003). Å skrive seg tillesing: IKT ismåskolen. Oslo: Universitetsforl.
• Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 1- 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114
• Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological review, 80(5), 352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0020071
• van der Weel, A. (2011). Changing Our Textual Minds: Towards a Digital Order of Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human movement science, 10(2), 165-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(91)90003-G
• Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., & Neuwirth, C. (Eds.). (2006). Writing and digital media. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Velay, J.-L., &Longcamp, M. (2013). Motor skills and written language perception: Contribution of writing knowledge to visual recognition of graphic shapes. In Y. Coello& A. Bartolo (Eds.), Language and action in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 161-176). New York: Psychology Press.
• Wamain, Y., Tallet, J., Zanone, P.-G., &Longcamp, M. (2012). Brain responses to handwritten and printed letters differentially depend on the activation state of the primary motor cortex. NeuroImage, 63(3), 1766-1773. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.020
• Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625- 636. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
• Wilson, M. (2008). How did we get from there to here? An evolutionary perspective on embodied cognition. In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 375-393). Amsterdam: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-046616- 3.00019-0
• Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York: HarperCollins.
