comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning...

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Comparison of Pen and Keyboard Transcription Modes in Children with and without LearningDisabilitiesAuthor(s): Virginia W. Berninger, Robert D. Abbott, Amy Augsburger and Noelia GarciaSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Summer, 2009), pp. 123-141Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27740364 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 04:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:43:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27740364?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


COMPARISON OF PEN AND KEYBOARD TRANSCRIPTION MODES IN CHILDREN

WITH AND WITHOUT LEARNING DISABILITIES

Virginia W. Berninger, Robert D. Abbott, Amy Augsburger, and Noelia Garcia

Abstract. Fourth graders with learning disabilities in transcrip tion (handwriting and spelling), LD-TD, and without LD-TD (non LD), were compared on three writing tasks (letters, sentences, and

essays), which differed by level of language, when writing by pen and by keyboard. The two groups did not differ significantly in Verbal IQ but did in handwriting, spelling, and composing achievement. Although LD-TD and non-LD groups did not differ in total time for producing letters by pen or keyboard, both groups took longer to compose sentences and essays by keyboard than by pen. Students in both groups tended to show the same pattern of results for amount written as a larger sample of typically develop ing fourth graders who composed longer essays by pen. Results for that sample, which also included typically developing second and sixth graders, showed that effects of transcription mode vary with level of language and within level of language by grade level for letters and sentences. However, consistently from second to fourth to sixth grade, children wrote longer essays with faster word pro duction rate by pen than by keyboard. In addition, fourth and sixth graders wrote more complete sentences when writing by pen than by keyboard, and this relative advantage for sentence com

posing in text was not affected by spelling ability. Implications of the results for using computers for accommodations or specialized instruction for students with LD-TD are discussed.

VIRGINIA W. BERNINGER, Ph.D., University of Washington. ROBERTO. ABBOTT, Ph.D., University of Washington. AMY AUGSBURGER, Ph.D., University of Washington. NOELIA GARCIA, Ph.D., University of Washington.

In a seminal, influential paper, Hayes and Flower

(1980) proposed that three cognitive processes guide skilled writing: Planning (generating ideas and setting goals), translating (turning ideas into written text), and

revising (recreating the text to improve clarity of idea

expression). Further, based on cross-sectional studies

with children in first through sixth grades, Berninger and Swanson (1994) claimed that children's translating involves two component processes: text generation,

which occurs at different levels of language; and tran

scription, which includes handwriting (letter produc tion) and spelling (word production).

Volume 32, Summer 2009 123



Berninger and Swanson (1994) concluded that tran

scription may be especially important in beginning and

developing writing in the elementary school years. However, researchers who study adult writers have sub

sequently documented that transcription is also an

important cognitive process in skilled writing (e.g., Alagamarot & Chanquoy, 2001; Alamargot, Dansac, Chesnet, & Fayol, 2007; Hayes & Chenoweth, 2006).

Transcription is a basic cognitive process in writing that enables the writer to translate internal language into external written symbols to express ideas in writ ten language (Berninger et al., 2009; Hayes &

Berninger, in press; Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009). Transcription ability, which draws on handwrit

ing and spelling, has been found to uniquely predict composing length and quality in developing writers

(Berninger, Cartwright, Yates, Swanson, & Abbott, 1994; Berninger et al., 1992; Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997), and is thus not a mere mechanical skill (Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009).

Subsequent instructional studies have shown that

early handwriting and spelling problems can be treated

effectively in first, second, and third graders and that such early specialized instruction in transcription trans ferred to improved composition; for a review of this research and the related conclusion that treating transcription problems early in schooling prevents

more severe writing problems later, see Berninger and Amtmann (2003). More recently, assessment studies

(Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008a, 2008b; Berninger, Raskind, Richards, Abbott, & Stock, 2008) and instructional studies (Berninger, Rutberg et al., 2006; Berninger, Winn et al, 2008) have

supported the conclusion that specific learning disabili ties exist in transcription skills - handwriting and/or

spelling (Berninger, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008c) - that

interfere with typical writing development but are treat

able with specialized instruction. Now that computers are widely available both at

home and at school, letter production is not achieved

solely through handwriting, and typing on a keyboard has become a widely used mode of transcription. Thus, researchers are beginning to study the development of the ability of children with and without specific learning disability in transcription (LD-TD) to write by two transcription modes -

by pen (or pencil) and by keyboard.

Two meta-analyses found moderate positive effects of word processing on length and quality of compositions (Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Goldberg, Russell, & Cook,

2003). Bangert-Drowns (1993) reported that these

effects were even larger for poor than for good writers. Other researchers have focused not on length and qual

ity but on time-related factors in text production. For

example, Connelly, Gee, and Walsh (2007) found that

transcription by pen resulted in faster word production than did transcription by keyboard in elementary school students. The authors attributed this finding to children having more experience writing with pens and

pencils than writing with keyboards; although comput ers are available, they are not used as often in the ele

mentary-grade classroom for writing assignments or

during writing instruction as pens and pencils, even in an era when children may have considerable experience using computers at home.

Other investigators have focused on processes related to handwriting and keyboarding. Christensen (2004) investigated automaticity of integrating orthographic (letter) codes with motor output functions and discov ered that automatic orthographic-motor integration on an alphabetic writing task explained significant vari ance in fluency of composing by both handwriting and

keyboarding, but especially for keyboarding. The meas ure used is the one found by Berninger et al. (1992, 1994) to be the best unique predictor of compositional fluency in elementary students. Berninger, Abbott et al.

(2006) documented intra-individual differences in rela tive skill on this automatic orthographic-motor integra tion task for writing manuscript or cursive letters by pen or selecting alphabet letters by keyboard.

Yet other researchers have focused on how transcrip tion, if not automatized, drains resources in capacity limited working memory (e.g., see Bourdin & Fayol, 1994; Fayol, 1999, 2008; Hayes & Chenoweth, 2006; Olive, Favart, Beauvais, & Beauvais, in press; Olive,

Kellogg, & Piolat, 2008). Dauite (1986) proposed that

writing by keyboard frees up working memory for

higher-level writing processes by removing the burden of the mechanical production of writing by hand. A testable hypothesis deriving from this line of research and Dauite's proposal is that children may write more

and faster by keyboard than by pen.

Finally, considerable research has focused on the

development and validation of computer tools for stu

dents with learning disabilities affecting writing, rang

ing from software for teaching or practicing specific writing skills and checking spelling to web-based resources to oral language production alternatives that

replace or supplement written language production (for review, see Berninger & Amtmann, 2003).

Research that focuses specifically on the use of com

puter tools in teaching writing to students with learning disabilities has shown that computers have modest ben eficial effects on students' writing, mostly for editing purposes (MacArthur, 2006). Computers may be most

beneficial for writing development when combined with evidence-based, explicit, teacher-guided instruc

Learning Disability Quarterly 124



tion in writing strategies for both children with and

without learning disabilities (see MacArthur, 2006, and

recent meta-analysis by Graham & Perrin, 2007a,

2007b).

Relationship of Transcription Mode to Levels of Language

The current study was not an instructional study. Instead, the goal was to examine the effect of two tran

scription modes for producing letters (letter formation

by pen or letter selection by keyboard) on children's

composing at different levels of language at different

grade levels: reproducing alphabet letters in alphabetic order (same task used by Christensen, 2004, to study

transcription modes), constructing a single sentence, or

composing an essay. The alphabet writing task was included so we could

compare our results to those of Christensen (2004), who used this task to show that the problem in auto

matic orthographic (letter)-motor integration also

underlies compositional fluency by keyboard and by pen. The sentence writing task was included because we are conducting a larger study of when sentence

awareness and writing of complete sentences emerge and are mastered. Finally, the essay writing task was

included as part of a broader study of development of

genre-specific composing. The rationale of the study was that if the relative

advantage of pen as a transcription mode is found only at certain levels of language in writing production, the

effect may not be due entirely to more writing experi ence with one transcription mode than the other.

Although faster writing may be related, in part, to more

experience with writing by pen (Connolley et al., 2007) and relative lack of explicit instruction in keyboarding

compared to writing by pen (Christensen, 2004;

Connolley et al., 2007), we wondered if amount and

rate of writing on each transcription mode might also

vary with level of language. We focused on essay writing because written assign

ments at school require that children produce more

expository writing (e.g., informational texts) than nar

rative writing, especially after third grade, as teachers

pointed out to our research team when we shared with

them the results of an instructional study showing

gains in narrative writing. We also considered whether

the nature of the learning disabilities (e.g., impaired

spelling) might influence whether writing by pen or by

keyboard was more advantageous. The first research aim was to study two modes of

transcription -

handwriting and keyboarding - at three

levels of text generation -

letters, sentences, and text -

in the same children in second and fourth grade (first cohort that enrolled in first grade) and fourth grade and

sixth grade (second cohort that enrolled in third grade). A related goal was to evaluate the same variables for

individuals in smaller groups in the larger sample who

participated in the brain imaging study. One group had

handwriting and spelling disabilities, that is, transcrip tion disabilities, and is referred to as LD-TD; the other

group did not. Keeping in mind that the longitudinal sample was not a clinic-referred or school-identified

sample of students with learning disabilities in writing and that all children in a large, diverse school system were invited to participate, we were not surprised that a

small number in the sample would have specific learn

ing disabilities affecting their writing, despite otherwise

typical development. Children with LD-TD met research criteria for specific

learning disabilities in written language, defined on the

basis of prototypical profiles and associated phenotypes (behavioral markers) for specific writing disabilities

(Berninger, 2007a, 2007b, 2008c) that have been vali

dated in 25 years of programmatic research on writing

(Berninger, 2009). However, not all of the children with LD-TD had exactly the same profile of specific writing disabilities and would not necessarily be eligible for spe cial education services.

Diagnosis and eligibility for special education services are not the same: Eligibility for services varies widely from state to state (Berninger & Holdnack, 2008), and

children who meet diagnostic criteria often do not meet

state eligibility criteria (Berninger, 2006). It is hoped that an evidence-based diagnostic scheme for specific learning disabilities in writing will be developed in the

future that is consistent from state to state and ensures

that affected individuals are identified and given free

and appropriate education for writing beginning in kindergarten and continuing throughout formal

schooling whenever necessary, in either general or

special education (Berninger, 2006, 2009; Berninger &

Holdnack, 2008; Berninger & Wolf, 2008). The second research aim was to study how spelling

ability might interact with constructing complete sen

tences in single sentences or essays when transcribing

by pen or by keyboard at the second-, fourth-, or sixth

grade level. For this second aim, we used three spelling

ability groups, who were identified in the larger sample

during the first year of the study and reliably remained

members of the same three spelling ability groups for

four years (Garcia, 2007). We evaluated main effects and

possible interactions among these independent variables -

spelling ability group (low, average, or supe

rior), transcription mode (pen or keyboard), level of

language in text generation (sentences alone or in text), and grade level (second, fourth, or sixth) for number

of complete sentences as a dependent measure.




METHOD

Participants Sample recruitment To announce the opportunity

to participate in a research study, a letter, approved by the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects, was sent to all parents of children who would be

entering first or third grade in the fall in a large urban school district near a research university in the Pacific

Northwest in the United States. Interested parents were invited to contact the research coordinator, who

explained the study. Informed consent was obtained if children met research inclusion criteria and parents decided to participate and bring their child to the

university annually for five years to complete writing and related tasks.

The research inclusion criteria specified that, based on parental interview and questionnaire, the child showed no indication in developmental or medical his

tory of brain injury or disease, intellectual deficiency, primary language or motor disorders, autism spectrum or other pervasive developmental disorder, diagnosis of severe social emotional disturbance, or neurogenetic disorder associated with abnormal development. Thus, the sample was neither a referred sample nor a sample of convenience already identified by a school system (for example, enrolled in special education). Characteristics of sample. The study used an accel

erated cohort design, such that the first cohort began the study when they were in first grade and ended

when they were in fifth grade; the second cohort began the study when they were in third grade and ended

when they were in seventh grade. Attrition was low for the total sample, which included 241 children in the first year. It is reported here for the years that contributed data for the analyses in the current study. For the first cohort, of the original 128 first-grade participants, 124 returned in second grade (second

year) and 119 in fourth grade (fourth year). For the second cohort, of the original 113 third graders, 110 returned in fourth grade (second year) and 106 in sixth

grade (fourth grade). Both cohorts were diverse in ethnicity and parental

level of education and were representative of the

community from which they were recruited. Self

reported ethnicities included European-American (64.8%; 65.5%), Asian-American (23.4%; 21.2%),

African-American (6.3%; 9.7%), Hispanic (1.6%; 0.9%), Native American (1.6%, first cohort only), and other

(2.3%; 2.7%). Parent level of education varied from < a

high school education (7% mothers; 12.5% fathers) to

high school (7.1% mothers, 7.1% fathers) to > high school education (11.7% mothers, 7.8% fathers; 11.5%

mothers, 14.2% fathers) to undergraduate (45.3%

mothers, 39.8% fathers; 50.4% mothers, 36.3% fathers) or graduate degree (33.6% mothers, 32.0% fathers; 30.1% mothers, 35.4% fathers). Level of education was

missing for the other parents.

Students with Learning Disabilities in Writing Children with LD-TD affecting handwriting and/or

spelling (first research aim). Data were available at fourth grade for the group who had specific learning disability in transcription skills (n = 8), hereafter referred to as LD-TD, and children without LD-TD (n=l2), who

were matched in verbal ability but differed significantly in handwriting and spelling skills. The children with LD-TD had transcription skills that

were below the mean for age and at least one standard deviation below their Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition (WISC-3; Wechsler, 1991) Verbal IQ, based on definitions used in other program matic research on specific writing disabilities (e.g., Berninger, Nielsen et al., 2008a, 2008b; Berninger, Raskind et al., 2008); they did not have to meet research criteria for reading disability.

The non-LD writers were near, at, or above age or

grade level for handwriting, spelling, and composing. The non-LD writers (M= 119.25, SD = 17.00) and LD-TD writers (M = 116.63; SD = 8.23) did not differ signifi cantly in Verbal IQ, F(1,1S) = 0.16, p = .69. But they dif fered significantly on a standardized measure of PAL

Alphabet 151 (Berninger, 2007) (non-LD writers, M =

.45 z; SD = .74; LD-TD, M = -.44 z; SD = .93), F(l,18) =

5.66, p = .029, Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition (WIAT-II) (Wechsler, 2002) Spelling (non-LD writers, M = 114.00; SD = 9.59; LD-TD, M = 93; SD = 6.46), F(l,18) = 29.22, p = .001, and WIAT II

Written Expression (non-LD writers, M = 113.25; SD = 8.78; LD-TD, M = 96.25; SD = 10.74), F(l, 18) =

15.08, p = .001. The differences in composition are not

unexpected given prior research showing a unique rela

tionship between transcription skills and composition quality and fluency (amount written within a time

limit) in elementary- and middle-school students

(Berninger et al., 1992, 1994; Christensen, 2004; Graham et al., 1997).

These same groups of LD-TD writers and good writers, all of whom were right-handed, have been shown to have brain activation differences on writing tasks, lend

ing additional support to the theory that the group with lower writing skills had biologically based LD-TD. The

groups differed significantly in functional magnetic spectroscopic imaging (fMRI) blood oxygen level

dependent (BOLD) activation on a variety of fMRI writ

ing tasks in the summer following fifth grade: idea

generation (Berninger et al., 2009), handwriting (Berninger & Richards, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c;




Richards et al., 2008), spelling (Richards, Berninger, Stock et al., 2009), and planning sequential finger

movements (Berninger & Richards, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009). These brain activation differences were predicted by relevant behav ioral measures of writing given in fifth grade (e.g., Berninger, 2009; Berninger, Richards, & Abbott, 2009;

Richards, Berninger, Stock et al., 2009).

Effect of spelling ability on writing complete sen

tences (second research aim). Garcia (2007) identified

children who consistently across the longitudinal study were poor (5 girls, 5 boys, cohort 1; 5 girls, 5 boys, cohort

2), average (5 girls, 5 boys, cohort 1; 5 girls, 5 boys, cohort 2), or superior (5 girls, 5 boys, cohort 1; 5 girls, 5

boys, cohort 2) spellers based on the WIAT-II (Wechsler, 2002) spelling subtest, a test of spelling single written

words from dictation.

Handwriting or reading skill was not a criterion for

group membership in this study. WIAT-II spelling scores

fell at or below 95 for poor spellers, between 105 and 112 for average spellers, and above 122 for superior

spellers. The upper limit of poor spellers and lower limit

of the average spellers and the upper limit of average

spellers and lower limit of superior spellers were sepa rated by two thirds of a standard deviation on the

WIAT-II spelling subtest, which has a mean of 100 and

standard deviation of 15 (Garcia, 2007). The poor

spellers met criteria for LD-TD subtype spelling disabil

ity, hereafter referred to as LD-SP; they were not only

underachieving in spelling compared to their Verbal

IQ but were also spelling below the population mean

and had associated deficits in phonology, orthography, and/or morphology (e.g., see Berninger, Nielsen et al.,

2008a, 2008b; Berninger, Raskind et al., 2008; Garcia,

2007).

Measures Order of administration of the writing tasks at three

levels of language was kept constant across each year of

the study so that comparisons could be made across

development not related to effects due to variations in

order of administration. First, all children completed an

alphabet writing task in which they were instructed to

form (by pen) and then select (by keyboard) each of the

letters in the alphabet in alphabetic order as accurately and quickly as possible. The examiner recorded the last

letter written at 15 seconds and the total time, measured

by hand-held stop watch, for writing all 26 letters. For

this alphabetic writing task, children were asked to form

lowercase, manuscript letters by pen, as used in prior research, because lowercase letters are more frequent than capital letters in the text they read and write;2 standard keyboards have capital letters rather than low

ercase, however.

Next, children were asked to write a sentence and then an essay about specified topics, first by pen, and then by keyboard. For these sentence-level and text level writing tasks, we did not specify whether children had to use manuscript or cursive letters. That is because

past research (Graham, Berninger, & Weintraub, 1998; Jones, 2004) has shown that both typically developing and poor writers use manuscript, cursive, or a mix of

manuscript and cursive, and we did not want to disrupt the practiced handwriting format of individual writers

during the translation process. The sentence composing and essay composing writ

ing tasks were the same across transcription mode

except that the topics children wrote about were varied in order to maintain interest. However, topics were sim ilar across transcription modes at the sentence (writing or reading) and text (computers and robots) levels. Instructions for each combination of writing task and

mode of writing by pen or by keyboard follow. Children were instructed to use a pen to "Write a

good sentence that begins with the word writing." The child indicated when he or she had completed the sen tence by typing a double slash to indicate where he or

she thought the sentence ended. Children were allowed to write more if they wished about the topic, but only

what they had written before the double slash was

entered into subsequent analyses of word count. The amount of time the child wrote up to the double slash was recorded and used in data analyses. Thus, unit of

production reflected what the child thought a sentence was. For this research aim, the written production was

not scored for sentence fragment, run-on sentence, or

complete sentence, as was the case for the second research aim.

After the sentence writing task by pen, children were

given the following instructions for essay writing by pen: "Explain what a computer is and what it does to someone who has never seen one or used one." The time limit was 10 minutes, which we have found is

ample for obtaining independently generated composi tion samples from children in the grade range studied. If the child ceased writing before the time limit, despite two prompts to write more ("What else can you think

of?"), the actual time spent writing was recorded. Examiners asked children to identify any word they could not decipher because of illegible handwriting or

unconventional spelling; this information was recorded so at the time of data analyses we could discern which

letters and words were intended when analyzing data.

Finally, children performed sentence and essay com

posing tasks by keyboard. Children were first instructed to "Write a good sentence that begins with the word

reading." As with sentence composing by pen, the child

indicated that the sentence was completed by typing a




double slash to indicate where he or she thought the sentence ended. Children were allowed to write more if

they wished about the topic, but, as for writing by pen, only the number of words they had written before the double slash and the time they had spent writing up to the double slash were used in data analyses.

Then children were given the following prompt for

essay writing by keyboard: "Explain what a robot is and what it does to someone who has never seen one or used one." The time limit was 10 minutes. Again, if,

despite two prompts to continue, the child ceased writ

ing before the 10-minute time limit, the actual time

spent writing was recorded; examiners asked children to

identify any word they could not decipher and recorded the intended word for purposes of later data analyses.

Procedures Children completed the following tasks at the univer

sity, where trained and highly supervised graduate stu dents administered the testing. Children completed a series of writing tasks at different levels of language, first

by pen and then by keyboard, which were then scored for each level of language across the transcription

modes.

Automatic letter production. The number of legible letters in alphabetic order in the first 15 seconds was counted to assess amount written during this initial time segment for the alphabet writing task by pen and

by keyboard. Letters were considered legible if they could be identified if they appeared out of the context of the alphabet writing task. This score, which was used in Berninger et al. (1992, 1994), Graham et al. (1997), and Christensen (2004), is an index of automaticity in

retrieving alphabet letters from memory and producing them legibly and quickly in the correct order. We also entered the total time for writing all 26 alphabet letters for both transcription modes into analyses. Number of words and rate of word production. For

the first research aim, the number of words was counted for the sentence writing and essay composing tasks on

both transcription modes and converted, based on total time for the task, to a seconds-per-word score. For sen tence writing on either transcription mode, the prompt

word "Writing" or "Reading" was counted in the word count and analysis, as were any other words before the double slash.

Coding complete sentences. Much of the research on oral language production (oral register of language) (Halliday, 1987) has used the T-unit, or "minimal ter

minable unit," which is "one main clause plus any sub ordinate clause or nonclausal structure that is attached to or embedded in it" (Hunt, 1970, p. 4). However, for three reasons, we did not use T-units in analyzing children's production of complete written sentences on

the sentence writing and essay writing tasks for the second research aim.

First, oral utterances (the oral register) do not neces

sarily correspond to written language productions. We do not talk in sentences. Second, linguistic analysis of written language productions has been relatively neg lected compared to oral language production (Jaffr? &

Fayol, 2006), and our goal is to remedy that. Third, writ

ing instruction and expectations at school, based on the academic register for written language, emphasize writ

ing in complete sentences rather than sentence frag ments or run-on sentences.

Thus, for the sentence writing and essay writing tasks for the second research aim, number of complete sen

tences, rather than number of words as for the first research aim, was analyzed at two levels of language

-

single sentences and essays. Complete sentences were defined as (a) one main clause with no other independ ent or dependent clauses or conjunctions, (b) a main clause plus an embedded or non-embedded subordinate clause and subordinate conjunction (e.g., which or

because), (c) two main clauses combined with a coordi

nating conjunction (and), or (d) two main clauses with a correlative conjunction (or). Punctuation, which marks idea units, was also used to determine sentence boundaries (Fayol, 1999).

To calculate interrater reliability for the coding scheme, two members of the research team were trained to code. After practice, they coded the sentence and the essay writing samples by both pen and keyboard independently for 20 randomly selected participants in second and fourth grade for the first cohort and in fourth and sixth grade for the second cohort. Average interrater reliability was 94.2%.

RESULTS First Research Aim

Results of the analyses for all the children (234 in year 2; 225 in year 4) are reported because learning disabili ties are best understood in reference to the typical variation that occurs in children without learning disabilities (Berninger, 2009). Results for second grade are from cohort 1; results for fourth grade are combined across cohorts 1 and 2; results for sixth grade are from cohort 2.

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and inferential statistics (repeated analyses of variance, ANOVAs) for each condition (two transcription modes

by three levels of language) are reported for amount written (see Table 1) and the letter writing times or word production rates (see Table 2) at each of the three grade levels (second, fourth, and sixth). The find

ings are explained separately by level of language and

grade level.




Table 1

Relationship of Transcription (by Pen or by Keyboard) to Amount Written

Levels of Language By Pen Mean SD

By Keys Mean SD

Automatic Letter Writing3'5 (15 sec)

Grade 2

Grade 4

Grade 6

Words in Essay3 (10 minutes)

Grade 2

Grade 4

Grade 6

4.45

7.18

10.12

2.20

3.41

3.44

6.20

11.73

18.31

4.02

5.35

5.09

df

1,121

1,118

1,105

25.70

83.17

276.19

.001

.001

.001

Partial eta2

.18

.42

.72

Words in Sentences

Grade 2 6.02 4.39 5.17 3.75 1,117 4.32 .04 .04

Grade 4 7.62 4.77 9.87 6.85 1,118 21.09 .001 .15

Grade? 8.82 5.12 11.52 6.48 1,105 18.71 .001 .15

21.67 14.76 13.23 7.74 1,119 61.46 .001 .34

58.34 34.60 36.73 22.66 1,118 70.21 .001 .37

73.87 30.65 59.42 33.72 1,105 19.77 .001 .16

aWithin time limit. b Alphabet 15 seconds; 2001 version of Berninger (2007a), which now has scaled scores.

Alphabet writing. Second graders produced more cor

rect alphabet letters in alphabetic order in the first 15

seconds by keyboard (see Table 1), but required more

time to produce all 26 letters by keyboard (see Table 2). Likewise, fourth and sixth graders also produced more

correct letters in alphabetic order in the first 15 seconds

by keyboard (see Table 1), but unlike the second graders, they required less time to produce all 26 letters by key board (see Table 2). This pattern of results not only reflects an advantage of the keyboard for automatic let ter writing (how many items are produced legibly and in

order within a time limit early in retrieval of an ordered item set) in grades 2, 4, and 6, but also a developmental change in handwriting speed (total time required for pro

ducing all items in an ordered set legibly and in order), with fourth and sixth graders becoming faster on the

alphabetic writing task by keyboard. Sentence composing. When producing what they

thought was a sentence, second graders wrote more

words, but fourth and sixth graders wrote fewer words

by pen than by keyboard (see Table 1). Consistently, the

second, fourth, and sixth graders composed a single sentence unit at a faster rate by pen (see Table 2).

Essay composing. Consistently, second, fourth, and sixth graders composed longer essays by pen than by keyboard (see Table 1). Number of words or length of a

composition within a constant time interval is consid ered a measure of compositional fluency, which has been shown to have moderately high correlations with

composing quality (e.g., Berninger et al., 1992). When outcome was number of seconds required per word,

consistently second, fourth, and sixth graders produced words in essays at a faster word production rate by pen than by keyboard (see Table 2).

Summary. Second, fourth, and sixth graders wrote more letters automatically by keyboard than by pen, and fourth and sixth graders wrote the whole alphabet faster by keyboard than by pen. Second graders wrote




longer sentences (number of words in what was per ceived as complete sentence unit), but fourth and sixth

graders wrote shorter sentences by pen than by key board. The second, fourth, and sixth graders wrote sen

tences faster (seconds per word) by pen than by

keyboard. Second, fourth, and sixth graders wrote

longer essays (number of words) and wrote essays faster

(seconds per word) by pen than by keyboard. Thus,

transcription mode effects depended on level of lan

guage and grade. Only at the text level did pens have a

consistent advantage over keyboards across grade levels

for both amount written (number of words) and rate

(seconds per word). Individual subject analyses. First, because of the

well-documented compositional fluency problems of

students with LD-TD (e.g., Berninger & Amtmann, 2003; Christensen, 2004; Connelly, Campbell, MacLean, & Barnes, 2006), we compared the LD-TD

(handwriting and/or spelling disability) and non-LD

groups who participated in the brain imaging studies on

the time they engaged in sustained writing on each level of language task and transcription mode in fourth

grade.

The two-way ANOVAs showed that time effects varied with level of language. Transcription mode did not

affect letter production time, but it did affect sentence

and essay composing time. Whether LD-TD or non-LD

groups wrote by pen (LD-TD, M= 53.25, SD = 9.57; Non

LD, M = 43.42, SD = 19.21) or keyboard (LD-TD, M =

50.88, SD = 25.69; Non-LD, M = 44.25, SD = 22.26), they did not differ significantly in total time for letter pro duction, F(l,18) = .027, p = .872. However, both groups took longer to compose sentences and essays by key board than by pen.

For sentence composing, in contrast to the findings for the larger sample of typically developing fourth

graders who wrote words faster (seconds per word) in

sentences by keyboard than by pen, both students with

&

i

Table 2

Relationship of Transcription (by Pen or by Keyboard) to Writing Time

Levels of Language By Pen Mean SD

Letters: Total Time Alphabet3

Writing: Sees

Grade 2 81.09 27.35

Grade 4 54.47 22.28

Grade 6 35.93 13.93

Sentences: Sees/Word

Grade 2 9.53 8.34

Grade 4 5.64 3.65

Grade 6 3.97 2.69

Essays: Sees/Word

Grade 2 15.52 20.99

Grade 4 7.19 5.09

Grade 6 4.60 3.91

By Keys Mean SD

88.25

47.82

25.64

22.66

11.27

4.79

30.07

?3.06

6.10

35.65

25.17

15.60

13.40

8.37

4.40

16.23

6.44

4.71

aAlphabet Total Time; 2001 version of Berninger (2007a), which now has scaled scores.

df

1,117

1,107

1,118

1,111

1,970

1,104

1,850

1,710

1,104

5.09

8.11

53.70

78.25

43.68

4.38

26.22

71.13

12.34

.03

.005

.001

.001

.001

.04

.001

.001

.001

Partial eta2

0.04

0.07

0.34

0.41

0.31

0.04

0.24

0.50

0.11

ii; -'rfrffik-' '"'""'i '

11 ' ii "''i ?jft? :V' i *' i'ii i:i m Tr?rafr?ri^f?" fifi

?., . ...,. -,..,-_.. ?- ., .^,. -. ̂ J&Ml

i" m' n i - f f - - "i 'i 'ff ? fu ni v iiiiii 111 ihn i irififhTJfltefci.jBbfc?iiA J




%jWf*Hg^ >%^'^ "l^W"i --1' 'tefe#-- v-y/;--' ; -il -

Table 3 Individual Analyses of Amount Written by Mode (Pen or Keyboard) and Level of Written Language (Alphabet Writing, Sentence Composing, and Essay Composing) in LD-TD Writers

(with Learning Disability in Transcription) and Non-LD Writers in Fourth Grade

LD-TD Writers

SI

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

Non-LD Writers

S9

S10

Sll

S12

S13

S14

S15

S16

S17

S18

S19

S20

Alphabet

By Pen # Letters

9

7

9

7

5

3

10

4

3

2

14

7

5

11

6

15

9

10

6

15

By Keys # Letters

3

4

21

0

12

16

12

14

7

n.a.

15

25

8

11

8

17

15

18

15

5

Sentence

By Pen # Words

5

5

5

3

11

6

3

6

6

9

9

7

6

11

17

9

5

5

6

3

By Keys # Words

3

3

14

6

12

5

10

6

6

6

4

7

4

11

21

10

7

7

8

10

Essay

By Pen By Keys # Words # Words

41

40

26

23

35

63

68

21

9

93

96

110

74

33

72

72

32

133

73

42

21

34

25

62

28

38

33

22

15

36

n.a.

70

46

20

56

36

17

45

54

13

j-"'' A

M

and without LD-TD composed sentences more slowly by keyboard (total seconds) (M = 57.90, SD = 42.03) than by pen (M = 38.50, SD = 16.60), F(l, 18) = 4.53,

p < .047. For essay composing, in keeping with the

findings for the larger sample of typically developing fourth graders, both students with and without LD-TD spent more time composing essays by key board (seconds) (M = 415.10, SD = 188.16) than by

pen (M = 325.05, SD = 157.85), F(l, 18) = 9.92, p = .006. For analyses of amount written, we examined indi

vidual differences of children with and without LD-TD in the brain imaging study in reference to the results for the larger longitudinal sample displayed in Tables 1 and 2. We did so because results at the group level of analysis do not always generalize to individuals

(e.g., Cronbach, 1957), and we have observed individ




ual differences among groups of students with writing disabilities in many of our studies (e.g., Berninger, Abbott, Whitaker, Sylvester, & Nolen, 1995). Some data are missing because of technical difficulties with administration or scoring.

As shown in Table 3, for amount written, the major ity of individuals within the LD-TD group and the non LD group showed the same patterns as the sample as a whole in fourth grade. Altogether, five of the eight LD-TD writers wrote more alphabet letters by keyboard than by pen. Of the 11 non-LD writers for whom data

were available on this task (matched to the LD-TD

sample on verbal ability), 9 wrote more alphabet letters

by keyboard than by pen. Children in both groups showed a mixed pattern for sentence composing: 3 of 8 LD-TD writers and 3 of 12 non-LD writers wrote longer sentences with more words by pen; 4 of 8 LD-TD

writers and 6 of 12 non-LD writers wrote sentences with more words by keyboard; and 1 of 8 LD-TD writ ers and 3 of 12 non-LD writers wrote the same number of words by pen and by keyboard. However, as the sam

ple as a whole, individual children in both groups tended to write longer essays with more words by pen than by keyboard: 6 of 8 LD-TD writers and 10 of the eleven non-LD writers with complete data. Thus, the group findings generalized well to individual cases

for amount written, especially at the letter and text

levels, but some individuals departed from the group

findings, as is often found in generalizing group research results to individual cases.

Second Research Aim Tables 4 and 5 summarize the results pertinent to

the second specific research aim. When second and fourth graders in the first cohort were compared on

writing complete sentences in essays (see Table 4), the only significant effect was for grade level. Fourth

graders wrote more complete sentences in essays (M = 3.56) than second graders (M = 1.96). When the fourth and sixth graders in the second cohort were com

pared on writing complete sentences in essays (see Table

4), significant main effects were observed for mode

(more by pen, M = 5.24, than by keyboard, M = 3.84), and grade (sixth graders wrote more, M = 5.32, than fourth graders, M = 3.77). Further, the mode by grade interaction was significant (the relative difference between modes was larger for the sixth grade, pen, M = 6.33, versus keyboard, M = 4.30, than for fourth

grade, pen M = 4.16, versus keyboard, M = 3.39). No differences related to transcription mode were

observed in either cohort for composing single com

plete sentences (see Table 5). None of the main effects or interactions involving spelling ability was signifi cant for either complete sentences in essays (see Table

4) or complete sentences alone (see Table 5). Thus, LD-SP or average or superior spelling was not related to

ability to compose complete sentences in or out of text.

DISCUSSION First Research Aim

Tested hypotheses. We did not find support for Dauite's (1986) prediction that children with learning disabilities would write more using keyboards because

keyboards relieve writers of the mechanical burden of

writing letters and thus free up working memory space. Rather, the relative advantage of keyboarding was found

mostly, but not always, at the letter level and sometimes at the sentence level, but not at all at the text level, which places greater demands on working memory capacity.

However, the current results do not speak directly to the role of working memory in writing (e.g., Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Alamargot et al., 1997; Bourdin &

Fayol, 1994; Chenoweth & Hayes, 2003; Olive et al., 2008, in press) or writing disabilities (e.g., Berninger, 2008; Hooper, Knuth, Yerby, Anderson, & Moore, 2009; Swanson & Berninger, 1996), but indirectly to the role of the keyboard in overcoming working mem

ory problems due to transcription processes not being automatized.

The most important finding relevant to the purpose of the research was that any advantage for transcription mode depended on level of language in the written

production, as hypothesized: Writing by pen had a con sistent advantage for amount written and rate of com

posing essays in second, fourth, and sixth graders (first

specific aim), and for fourth and sixth graders in com

posing complete sentences in essays (second specific aim). Thus, prior findings of faster handwriting speed by pen than by keyboard are related, no doubt in large part, to practice and explicit instruction with each tran

scription mode (Connolley, 2006; Christensen, 2004). However, other factors such as level of language in the

writing task may also contribute to writing longer essays and writing them faster by pen. The relative advantage in the current study for composing essays by pen repli cated prior findings for narrative composing in third, fifth, and seventh graders (Berninger, 2008a; Berninger & Richards, 2007). Later in the Discussion we consider how on-line processing may account for these findings.

Second Research Aim When the outcome was writing complete sentences,

the results depended on the grade levels that were com

pared. For the second and fourth graders in the first

cohort, neither of the transcription modes had a relative

advantage for producing complete sentences in sen




H ANOVA Summary for Mode (2), Spelling (3), and Cohort Grade (Cohort 1, Second and mm

B| Fourth Grade; Cohort 2, Fourth and Sixth Grade) for Complete Sentence in Essay Composing ||||

H| Mode by spelling 2.07 1.69 2 .32 .53

||j

Hi Spelling by grade 5.91 6.59 2 .08 .82 |||j

HH Mode x spell x grade .07 .05 2 .95 .03 |||l

Ijll Mode by grade 11.01 4.65 1 .04* .16 I; J jliil

Mode x spell x grade 6.76 2.85 2 .08 .19 W\

W??? Note. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences. ^^B




?k

Table 5 ANOVA Summary for Mode (2), Spelling (3), and Cohort Grade (Cohort 1, Second and Fourth Grade; Cohort 2, fourth and Sixth Grade) for Complete Sentence in Sentence

Composing

Cohort 1

Mode

Mode by spelling Error (mode)

Grade

Spelling by grade Error (grade)

Mode by grade Mode x spell x grade

Error (mode x grade)

Spelling Error (spelling)

Cohort 2

Mode

Mode by spelling Error (mode)

Grade

Spelling by grade Error (grade)

Mode by grade Mode x spell x grade Error (mode x grade)

Spelling Error (spelling)

MS

.01

.09

.04

.01

.09

.04

.01

.01

.05

.01

.05

.01

.01

.10

.01

.16

.09

.01

.01

.10

.06

.09

.16

2.10

.16

2.10

.25

.27

.27

.08

.08

.09

1.76

.08

.08

.65

df

1

2

14

1

2

14

1

2

14

2

14

1

2

27

1

2

27

1

2

27

2

27

.70

.16

.70

.16

.63

.77

.77

.78

.92

.76

.19

.78

.92

.53

Partial eta2

.01

.23

.01

.23

.02

.04

.04

.00

.01

.00

.12

.00

.01

.05

t?#l IV* j4i? ' fek

#1

"t\'!

m

m

Kl m

m

*m

*&

fei

m

: v"

V"'J

if

"' j

'- ,Y

r^;:-^^-' Sg^^gg




tence writing or essay writing. Both fourth and sixth

graders in the second cohort wrote more complete sen tences in essays by pen than by keyboard, but the chil dren in that cohort wrote more complete sentences and wrote relatively more of them when they were in sixth

grade than when they were in fourth grade. Of relevance for children with LD-SP, spelling ability

was never related to number of complete sentences. Word-level spelling and sentence-level composing are

separate levels of language: Ability at one level does not

predict ability at the other levels, as shown previously in

developing writers (e.g., Whitaker, Berninger, Johnston, & Swanson, 1994).

Relationship of Transcription Mode to LD Across both the first and second research aims, tran

scription mode effects did not differ for children with or without LD-TD. This finding held whether children had LD-TD (first aim) or LD-SP (second aim). Thus, whether children do or do not have TD problems, they will not

necessarily produce more written language or produce it faster by using a keyboard. That does not mean that

they should not use keyboards or be given explicit instruction in using keyboards as part of the instruc tional program in writing, however. This finding simply suggests that use of computer keyboard alone, without

explicit writing instruction, may not be an evidence based bypass strategy for TD problems.

In the following, we consider, from an on-line pro cessing perspective, why the advantages for writing with pens were found, and then we discuss the educa tional implications of the findings.

Relationship of Transcription and Text Generation in Translating Ideas

The relative advantage of the pen over the keyboard has been found for three different outcomes at the text level of production in elementary-school children: (a) essay writing for amount written and rate of word pro duction in second, fourth, and sixth grade (first research aim of current study); (b) number of complete sentences in essays (second research aim of current study); and (c) number of ideas expressed in essays (Hayes, 2008; Hayes & Berninger, 2009). Also, children wrote sentences at a faster word rate by pen (first specific aim) in second, fourth, and sixth grades.

To begin with, letter production (handwriting) enhances letter identification (James & Gauthier, 2006). Although letter writing may be more automatic by key board in second, fourth, and sixth grade and faster in letter writing speed in fourth and sixth grade, the time

advantage does not appear to result in longer essays or faster rate of essay writing when composing by key board. Forming a written word letter-by-letter by pen may leave a stronger memory trace for written words

than does producing a word letter-by-letter by keyboard in beginning and developing writers (current study), just as adults learn novel characters better by writing them by pen than by keyboard (Longcamp et al., 2008).

Pacton, Fayol, and Perruchet (2005) introduced the

important concept of implicit graphotactic learning -

learning to abstract the statistical regularities underly ing identification of written words (composed of

graphemes) by writing and spelling words. The motor act of producing a word results in tactile sensations in the brain; such sensations may create an envelope that links letters into a single written word unit, much as oral intonation creates a contour for linking phonemes into a spoken word unit (Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009), and thus facilitates the abstraction of ortho

graphic regularities. In support of the concept of graphotactic learning

through writing the letters in a word, Richards, Berninger, and Fayol (2009) found that children with and without LD-TD differed on an fMRI receptive spelling task with no motor output requirements: The non-LD spellers showed significant activation in pri mary somatosensory and primary motor regions of the

brain, but the LD-TD spellers showed activation only in

primary motor regions of the brain. As a result of form

ing words by pen, good writers may construct, based on tactile feedback from the motor act of forming letters

by hand, graphotactic word envelopes for familiar

word-specific spellings. However, children with LD-TD,

lacking the tactile feedback, may not abstract these

graphotactic word envelopes for word-specific spellings (Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009).

Graphotactic word envelopes may develop more

quickly and become automatic sooner for handwriting by pen than by keyboard because the writer receives dif ferent kinds of tactile feedback when forming letters

(outputting serial component strokes) than by selecting letters (touching a key with an already formed letter) (cf. James & Gauthier, 2006) or viewing letters on paper or monitor (e.g., Longcamp, Anton, Roth, & Velay, 2003).

For example, Longcamp et al. (2003) reported evi dence that letter perception engages motor regions of the brain whereas writing engages letter-specific visual

regions. Adults learned to discriminate new characters from their mirror images better when taught to produce the characters by pen than by keyboard (Longcamp et

al., 2008), indicating that the act of formation may have an advantage over selection of a character (Longcamp et

al., 2008). The finding that producing letter forms was faster by keyboard (alphabet writing in first 15 sees in

second, fourth, and sixth grades and alphabet writing total time in fourth and sixth grade) but rate of word

production (forming letters in sequence for word




spellings) was faster by pen suggests that the graphotac tic envelope for words may reduce time costs over those incurred by the single constituent letters alone. The reduced time costs may be related to how the grapho tactic envelope is involved in storage of and access to

written spellings. Research is needed on how writing by pen versus by

keyboard may differentially influence the construction of and access to graphotactic word envelopes, which

unify letter sequences into word units in memory, where they are coded in terms of single-letter identity, letter sequences, and also the word-specific spelling linked to morphology, semantics, and pronunciation. The current results suggest that although children with and without LD-TD differ in their construction of

graphotactic envelopes for specific words (Richards,

Berninger, & Fayol, 2009), using the keyboard alone is

unlikely to compensate for this problem in children with LD-TD. Specialized instruction in writing, which includes explicit instruction in transcription, may be

necessary as is discussed later. Pacton et al. (2005) also found that the abstracted sta

tistical regularities include both morphological and

orthographic properties. In both French (Pacton et al., 2005) and English (e.g., Nunes & Bryant, 2006), word

pronunciation and spelling are often regular for written

morpheme units that appear to be irregular at the

alphabet level (grapheme-phoneme correspondence). Garcia's (2007) discriminant-function analyses found that the same set of phonological, orthographic, and

morphological awareness abilities discriminated poor, average, and superior spellers from first to sixth grade, showing that spelling does not involve only phonolog ical processes. The act of producing a graphotactic word

envelope may activate silent orthotactic and morpho tactic regularities even when alphabetic principle is not

transparent (see Jaffr? & Fayol, 1999; Nunes & Bryant, 2006; Pacton et al., 2005).

Abstracting and activating morphological and ortho

graphic regularities by writing words by pen may benefit composing through the strong connections between morphology and vocabulary meaning and between morphology and text-level comprehension (e.g., Carlisle, 2003; Stahl & Nagy, 2005). As a result of these connections, word writing by pen results in essays that are longer, produced at a faster rate, and in fourth

grade and above may contain more complete sentences

(current study) and more ideas (Hayes, 2008; Hayes &

Berninger, 2009). Future research might address possible differences between handwriting and keyboarding in abstracting or activating morphological and ortho

graphic regularities at the word-level during composing. A complicating factor in comparing writing by pen

and by keyboard is the fact that we use only one hand

when writing by pen but two hands when writing by keyboard.3 Only the contralateral cerebral hemisphere regulates one writing hand, but two contralateral cere bral hemispheres are involved when writing by two

hands; coordinating the two hemispheres requires a white fiber tract commissure (corpus callosum), which

may not be fully myelinated until the middle school

years or later (age 11 and above) (see Berninger &

Richards, 2002). Future research might investigate the degree to which

differences between handwriting and typing might be related to differences in using one hand by pen or two hands by keyboard; for example, unimanual hand func tion may facilitate development of graphotactic envelopes for word production more than does biman ual hand function. In our clinical and research experi ence, children with LD-TD often self-report preference for the mouse, which requires only one hand to operate, as a mode of computer interface. Perhaps keyboarding

methods for using only one hand for selecting keys could be developed and evaluated for children with and without LD-TD in the formative stages of writing devel

opment. Alternatively, using a pen-like tool to form let ters on a computerized writing tablet may have an

advantage over a keyboard. In addition, whether key boards with lowercase letters might result in better text level composing might be investigated. However, relative advantages were observed at the letter-level for the keyboard, suggesting that the capital letter labels

may not be a problem. Finally, in an fMRI study, producing serial finger

movements, controlled for non-serial finger movement

alone, activated brain regions associated robustly with

cognitive, metacognitive, and language processes in non-LD writers (Berninger & Richards, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Richards, Berninger, Stock et al., 2009). Such activation may contribute to idea expression, sen tence construction to express complete thoughts, and

composition of longer essays. Future research might assess whether writing words

by pen is associated with more activation related to

higher level cognitive processes than is writing words by keyboard, at least in beginning and developing pr?ado lescent writers, because of how forming letters through

sequential pen strokes engages serial finger movements more than does selecting and pressing letters on a key board - at least until graphotactic envelopes are created for word-specific sequential keystrokes as well as word

specific sequential penstrbkes within and across letters.

Implications for Practice Use of computers in accommodations for students

with LD-TD. Parents often report that schools offer

their children with writing-related learning disabilities




accommodations in the form of using a computer to

complete writing assignments rather than specialized instruction in writing (Berninger, 2006, 2008b). Although some educational professionals believe that

computer keyboards alone will bypass writing problems and enable students with LD-TD to to express their ideas in written language, many parents observed that their children's writing problems persisted even when they had computer accommodations (Berninger, 2006, 2008b). An educationally relevant finding of the current

study is that across different outcomes for the first and second research aims, students with and without learn

ing disabilities showed the same pattern of relationships between transcription modes and levels of language. That is, they tended to compose longer essays and

compose at a faster rate by pen than by keyboard. Thus,

although accommodations in the form of using a com

puter keyboard to bypass transcription problems may be necessary and appropriate in some cases, they may not be sufficient.

Specialized instruction in writing for students with LD-TD. The results of the current study suggest that

relying only on accommodations with a keyboard may not be appropriate. Other research has shown that in the early grades children need explicit instruction and

practice in forming letters legibly and automatically by sequential component strokes and in multiple strategies for connecting units of spoken and written language in

sequential spelling units for specific words (for review, see Berninger & Amtmann, 2003). Recent meta-analyses for students in fourth grade and above have shown that

explicit, systematic instruction in writing that teaches

strategies for a variety of writing tasks and that incorpo rates computers in the instructional program is effective

(Graham & Perrin, 2007a, 2007b). Research has also

shown that in addition to incorporating computers into

the instructional program in writing, developing writers benefit from interactions between the teacher and stu

dent writers and among student writers in setting and

evaluating goals for planning, translating, and revising in composing text of many genres (Wong, 2001; Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996, 1997; Wong, Butler, Ficzere, Kuperis, & Corden, 1994; Wong, Wong, Darlington, & Jones, 1991). Thus, evidence supports the use of computers, not in isolation, but in the social context of evidence-based writing instruction.

For recent reviews of evidence-based writing instruc tion for students with LD-TD, see Graham, MacArthur, and Fitzgerald (2007), Hooper et al. (2009), and Troia

(2009). For evidence-based teaching strategies for writ

ing, see Graham and Harris (2005) and Harris, Graham, Mason, and Friedlander (2008). For lesson plans vali

dated in instructional research with older students with

persisting, diagnosed LD-TD that show that is never too

late to respond to explicit writing instruction, see

Berninger and Wolf (2009, in press). Appropriate writ

ing instruction for students with LD-TD can be provided in the general education as well as special education classroom if teachers are adequately trained in evidence based writing instruction, have access to evidence-based

writing curriculum and instructional tools, and imple ment them with fidelity; but recent surveys indicate that much work remains to make that a reality (e.g., Graham, Harris, Mason, Fink-Chorzempa, Moran, &

Saddler, 2008; Graham, Morphy, Harris et al., 2008). Diagnosis of specific learning disabilities. Although

the primary goal of this research was to evaluate the

relationship between level of language and transcrip tion mode, the current research, which is part of a larger programmatic line of research on typical writing and

specific writing disabilities, also calls attention to the instructional needs of students with LD-TD. Nationally, in the United States, the reading problems of students

with LD have been emphasized rather than their writing problems. Federal legislation specifies written expres sion as one area in which a student may have an edu

cationally handicapping condition that entitles the affected individual to a free and appropriate education

(FAPE), but how that gets translated into practice in each state varies greatly. Existing federal legislation is not sufficiently explicit to identify educationally hand

icapping conditions in transcription skills in writing (but not necessarily the content of their idea genera tion) (e.g., see Berninger, 2006, 2008b, 2008c).

Many schools use the Written Expression Composite on the Woodcock Johnson, Third Edition (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mathers, 2001), based on writing samples (untimed measure of sentence-level composing that is scored for content and quality of composing rather than

transcription processes) and writing fluency (timed sen

tence-level composing). However, higher scores on writ

ing samples may mask LD-TD. In contrast, use of

writing fluency alone, which is more likely to be

impaired in LD-TD (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003; Christensen, 2004, Connelley et al., 2006), is more

likely to identify students who need specialized instruc tion in writing related to TD. WJ III Spell Sounds

(Woodcock et al., 2001), a measure of pseudoword spelling, and measures of real-word spelling and hand

writing are also likely to identify LD-TD (Berninger, 2006, 2008c).

Research has shown that some children have only LD-TD, which is also dysgraphia (impaired letter form

production) -

handwriting disability only (Berninger, Raskind et al., 2008c), spelling disability only (Fayol, Zorman, & L?t?, 2009), or handwriting and spelling dis

ability (Berninger, 2008c; Berninger, Raskind et al.,

2008). Other children have co-occurring problems in




reading and oral language problems (see Berninger, 2007a, 2007b, 2008c; Berninger, Raskind et al., 2008). Students with dyslexia have both reading and writing disability (Berninger, Nielsen et al., 2008a), and gender differences are associated with the writing disability, particularly the TD component (Berninger, Nielsen et

al., 2008b). Individual differences exist in the processes related to writing by pen and by keyboard, and these should be assessed to generate recommendations about

most appropriate accommodations and explicit writing instruction for individual students with LD-TD.

See Berninger, Abbott et al. (2006b) for evidence based processes that explain unique variance in writing manuscript and cursive letters by pen and by keyboard ing and can be used in assessment for instructional

planning. For example, using the keyboard is not neces

sarily a good bypass strategy if assessment shows that a

student with LD-TD has deficits in rapid automatic

naming or planning sequential finger movements (see

Berninger, Abbott et al., 2006b). Moreover, many students with LD are twice excep

tional and may be both intellectually gifted and have LD-TD. But because they are so bright, sometimes it is assumed that they are lazy or unmotivated because their LD related to handwriting or spelling or both has not been diagnosed or treated (Yates, Berninger, & Abbott, 1994).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The results of the current study show that some indi

viduals with writing disabilities, just as typically devel

oping writers, may write text better by pen than by keyboard. Accommodations in the form of using key boards are not a substitute for explicit instruction in

transcription for students with LD-TD. These students need instruction in using both the pen and the key board within a systematic instructional program that also teaches the other cognitive processes in writing. Appropriate accommodations may or may not include

keyboards, depending on what assessment shows are

relevant strengths and weaknesses in an individual's

learning profile and whether relevant instruction in

keyboarding is provided. In the information era, stu

dents with and without LD-TD may benefit from

explicit instruction in writing by both pen and key board across levels of written language (letters, words, sentences, and text) so that their writing is legible,4 con

ventional,4 and fluent4 by both transcription modes.

REFERENCES Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writ

ing. Studies in Writing Series (Series Editor G. Rijlaarsdam).

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Alamargot, D.; Dansac, C.; Chesnet, D., & Fayol, M. (2007). Parallel

processing before and after pauses: a combined analysis of

graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text

production. In C. Rijlaarsdam (Series editor), M. Torrence, L. van

Waes, & D. Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Studies in Writing, Vol. 20, pp. 13-29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The

effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on aca

demic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational

Research, 74, 29-58.

Berninger, V. (2006). A developmental approach to learning dis

abilities. In I. Siegel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psy

chology, Vol. IV, Child psychology and practice (pp. 420-452). New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Berninger, V. (2007a). Process Assessment of the Learner-II (PAL II)

Diagnostic for Reading and Writing. San Antonio, TX: The

Psychological Corporation.

Berninger, V. (2007b). Process Assessment of the Learner II user's

guide. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt/PsyCorp.

Berninger, V. (2008a, February). Relationship between levels of lan

guage and transcription mode. Presentation at the Santa Barbara

Conference on Writing Research: Writing Research Across

Borders, Santa Barbara, CA.

Berninger, V. (2008b, October). Listening to parents of children

with learning disabilities: Lessons from the University of

Washington Multidisciplinary Learning Disabilities Center.

Perspectives on Language and Literacy (pp. 22-30). Presentation

at the International Dyslexia Association conference, Seattle, WA.

Berninger, V. (2008c). Defining and differentiating dyslexia, dys

graphia, and language learning disability within a working

memory model. In E. Silliman & M. Mody (Eds.), Language

impairment and reading disability-interactions among brain, behav

ior, and experience (pp. 103-134). New York: Guilford Press.

Berninger, V. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdiscipli

nary research on writing. Learning Disabilities: Research and

Practice, 24, 68-79.

Berninger, V. Abbott, R.; Jones, J., Wolf, B., Gould, L., Anderson

Youngstrom, M. et al. (2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing-, reading-, listening-, and speaking-connec tions, three letter writing modes, and fast mapping in spelling.

Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 61-92.

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D.; Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S.

(1995). Integrating low-level skills and high-level skills in

treatment protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 18, 293-309.

Berninger, V., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expres sion 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 research on learning disabilities (pp. 345-363). New York: Guilford.

Berninger, V., Cartwright, A., Yates, C, Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading

acquisition in the intermediate grades: Shared and unique variance. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161-196.

Berninger, V., & Holdnack, J. (2008). Neuroscientific and clinical

perspectives on the RTI initiative in learning disabilities diagno sis and intervention: Response to questions begging answers

that see the forest and the trees. In C. Reynolds & E. Fletcher

Janzen (Eds.), Neuroscientific and clinical perspectives on the RTI

initiative in learning disabilities diagnosis and intervention (pp. 66

81). New York: John Wiley & Sons.




Berninger, V., Nielsen, K., Abbott, R., Wijsman, E.; & Raskind, W.

(2008a). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under

recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 1-21.

Berninger, V., Nielsen, K., Abbott, R., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W.

(2008b). Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46,151-172.

Berninger, V., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R., & Stock, P.

(2008). A multidisciplinary approach to understanding dev

elopmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture:

Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction. Developmental

Neuropsychology, 33, 707-744.

Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and

psychologists. New York: Academic Press.

Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2007, June). From idea generation to

idea expression in language by hand in good and poor writers.

Invited presentataion at the Psychological Aspects of Education

Current Trends Conference, Oxford Brookes University,

England.

Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2008a, February). Brain differences of 5th graders with and without writing disabilities on fMRI handwrit

ing, orthographic coding, and finger succession tasks. Presentation

at the conference of the International Neuropsychology Association, Honolulu, HI.

Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2008b, September). Writing first:

Teaching children to write at the beginning of schooling facilitates

reading and writing development. Invited presentation at the

Agence National de la Recherche, University of Lyon, Lyon, France.

Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2008c, September). The writing brain:

fMRI studies of idea generation, handwriting, spelling, sequential fin ger movements, and working memory in child writers. Invited pres entation at the Italian Association of Psychology, Padua, Italy.

Berninger, V., Richards, T., & Abbott, R. (2009). The role of the hand

in written idea expression. Proceedings for Writing in All Its States.

Invited presentation at the University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.

Berninger, V., Richards, T., Stock, P., Abbott, R., Trivedi, P.,

Altemeier, L., & Hayes, J. R. (2009). fMRI activation related to

nature of ideas generated and differences between good and

poor writers during idea generation. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph, Series II, 6, 77-93.

Berninger, V., Rutberg, J., Abbott, R., Garcia, N., Anderson

Youngstrom, M., Brooks, A. et al. (2006). Tier 1 and Tier 2 early intervention for handwriting and composing. Journal of School

Psychology, 44, 3-30.

Berninger, V., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes &

Flower's model of skilled writing to explain beginning and

developing writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Children's writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing (pp. 57

81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Berninger, V., Winn, W., Stock, P., Abbott, R., Eschen, K., & Lin, C. et al. (2008). Tier 3 specialized writing instruction for stu

dents with dyslexia. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 95-129.

Berninger, V., & Wolf, B. (2008, October). Creating the writing rev

olution. Presentation at the conference of the International

Dyslexia Association, Seattle, WA.

Berninger, V., & Wolf, B. (2009). Teaching students with dyslexia and dysgraphia: Lessons from teaching and science. Baltimore:

Paul H. Brookes.

Berninger, V., & Wolf, B. (in press). Helping students with dyslexia and dysgraphia make connections: Differentiated instruction lesson

plans in reading and writing. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Berninger, V., Yates, C, Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., &

Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning

writing. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257-280.

Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production

- A working memory approach. International Journal Psychology, 29, 591

620.

Carlisle, J. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A com

mentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291-322.

Chenoweth, N., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing.

Generating text in LI and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98.

Chenoweth, N., & Hayes, J. R. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication, 20, 99-118.

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(4), 551-565.

Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., & Barnes, J. (2006). Contribution of lower order skills to the written composition of

college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental

Neuropsychology, 29, 175-196.

Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of key boarded and written compositions and the relationship with

transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479-492.

Cronbach, L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.

Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in writing:

Insights from studies in computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 141-159.

Fayol, M. (1999). From on-line management problems to strategies in written production. In M. Torrance & G. Jefferey (Eds.), The

cognitive demands of writing. Processing capacity and working mem

ory effects in text production (pp. 13-23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Press.

Fayol, M. (2008, February). Toward a dynamic conception of written

production. Presentation at the Santa Barbara Conference on

Writing Research: Writing Research Across Borders, Santa

Barbara, CA.

Fayol, M., Zorman, M., & L?t?, B. (2009, in press). Associations and

dissociations in reading and spelling French. Unexpecteadly

poor and good spellers. British Journal of Educational Psychology

Monograph. Garcia, N. (2007, December). Phonological, orthographic, and

morphological contributions to the spelling development of good,

average, and poor spellers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Washington.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of com

puters on student writing: A metaanalysis of studies from 1992

to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2, 1-51.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D.

(1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170-182.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Weintraub, N. (1998). The relation

ship of handwriting style and speed and legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 290-296.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing better. Effective strategies for

teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul H.

Brookes.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C, & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best practices in

writing instruction. New York: Guilford.

Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler,




B.; Moran, S. et al. (2008b). Teaching spelling in the primary

grades: A national survey of instructional practices and adapta tions. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 796-825.

Graham, S., & D. Perin. (2007a). Writing next: Effective strategies to

improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools-A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance

for Excellent Education.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 99, 445-476.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and

written language (pp. 55-82). San Diego: Academic Press.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008).

Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore: Brookes.

Hayes, J. R. (2008, February). Effects of transcription mode on idea

expression in compositions. Presentation at Santa Barbara

Conference on Writing Research: Writing Research Across

Borders, Santa Barbara, CA.

Hayes, J. R., & Berninger, V. W. (in press). Relationships between

idea generation and transcription: How act of writing shapes what children write. In C. Braverman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S.

McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers, & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of

writing research. New York: Routledge.

Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts? Written

Communication, 23, 135-149.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinbert (Eds.),

Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Hooper, S., Knuth, S., Yerby, D., Anderson, K., & Moore, C.

(2009). Review of science-supported writing instruction with

implementation in mind. In S. Rosenfield & V. Berninger

(Eds.), Handbook on implementing evidence based academic inter

ventions (pp. 49-83). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and

adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 35(1, Serial No. 134).

Jaffr?, J-P., & Fayol, M. (2006). Orthography and literacy in

French. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthog

raphy and literacy (pp. 81-104). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

James, K., & Gauthier, I. (2006). Letter processing automatically recruits a sensory-motor brain network. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2937-2949.

Jones, D. (2004). Automaticity of the transcription process in the pro duction of written text. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.

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, 1492-1500.

Longcamp, M., Boucard, C, Gilhodes, J-C, Anton, J. L., Roth, M.,

Nazarian, B. et al. (2008). Learning through hand- or typewrit

ing influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: Behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of

Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 802-815.

MacArthur, C. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J.

Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 248-262). New York: Guilford Press.

Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching mor

phemes (Improving Learning Series). New York: Routledge. Olive, T., Favart, M., Beauvais, C, & Beauvais, L. (in press).

Children's cognitive effort in writing: Effects of genre and of

handwriting automatisation in 5th- and 9th-graders. Learning &

Instruction.

Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual and spa tial working memory demands during text composition.

Applied Psycholinguistics, 29 (4), 669-687.

Pacton, S., Fayol, M., & Perruchet, P. (2005). Children's implicit learning of graphotactic and morphological regularities. Child

Development, 2005, 324-339.

Psychological Corporation. (2002). Wechsler Individual Achieve ment Test - Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological

Corporation. Richards, T., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2009). FMRI activation

differences between 11-year-old good and poor spellers' access

in working memory to temporary and long-term orthographic

representations. Journal ofNeurolinguistics. Richards, T., Berninger, V., Stock, P., Altemeier, L., Trivedi, P., &

Maravilla, K. (2009). FMRI sequential-finger movement activa

tion differentiating good and poor writers. Journal of Clinical

and Experimental Neuropsychology. Richards, T., Berninger, V., Stock, P., Altemeier, L., Trivedi, P., &

Maravilla, K. (2008). Difference between good and poor child writ

ers on fMRI handwriting contrast in brain region associated with

orthographic coding. Revised manuscript under review.

Stahl, S., & Nagy, W. (2005). Teaching word meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. (1996). Individual differences in

children's working memory and writing skill. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358-385.

Troia, G. (Ed.) (2009). Instruction and assessment for struggling writ

ers. Evidence-based practices. New York: Guilford.

Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Third

Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th edi

tion (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Whitaker, D., Berninger, V., Johnston, J., & Swanson, L. (1994).

Intraindividual differences in levels of language in intermediate

grade writers: Implications for the translating process. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 107-130.

Wong, B.Y.L. (2001). Pointers for literacy instruction from educa

tional technology and research on writing instruction. The

Elementary School Journal, 101, 359-369.

Wong, B.Y.L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996).

Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achiev

ers to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 29, 197-212.

Wong, B.Y.L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1997).

Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achiev

ers to plan, write, and revise compare- and contrast-essays.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 2-15.

Wong, B.Y.L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., Kuperis, S., & Corden, M.

(1994). Teaching problem learners revision skills and sensitivity to audience through two instructional modes: Student-teacher

versus student-student interactive dialogues. Learning Disabili

ties Research Sc Practice, 9, 78-90.

Wong, B.Y. L., Wong, R., Darlington, D., & Jones, W. (1991). Interactive teaching: An effective way to teach revision skills

to adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice, 6, 117-127.

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mathers, N. (2001). Woodcock

Johnson Tests of Achievement, 3rd Edition (WJ III). Itasca, IL:

Riverside Publishing Company. Yates, C, Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (1994). Writing problems in

intellectually gifted children. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 18, 131-155.




NOTES Grant No. HD25858 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) supported this research.

xThis nationally normed test based on a measure validated in

cross-sectional writing studies (Berninger et al., 1992, 1994) and

revised in 2007 (Berninger, 2007a, 2007b) assesses number of

legible letters in alphabetic order produced and revised in 2007

(Berninger, 2007a, 2007b) within the first 15 seconds of writing the alphabet from memory in lowercase, manuscript letters.

2 Except for proper nouns, only the first word of a sentence is cap

italized; thus, overall, more lowercase letters are used in written

sentences produced by either pen or keyboard.

3 The authors thank Thomas Halverson, senior lecturer and

researcher, University of Washington (personal communication,

May 2, 2008) for suggesting this explanation of our findings. 4 Legible

= recognizable letter forms out of context; conventional =

dictionary spellings and acceptable syntax (grammar); fluent =

coordinated, effortless, and fast coordination of multiple

processes.

Please address correspondence about this article to: Virginia

Berninger, 322 Miller, Box 353600, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3600; e-mail: [email protected]




comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning...

Documents