Relationships between language input and letter output modes in writing notes and summaries for students in grades 4 to 9 with persisting writing disabilities.
Robert Thompson, Steven Tanimoto, Robert Abbott and 9 others
PMID 27434553WHAT IT FOUND
Students with writing disabilities improved in letter production and fluency after computerized instruction.
Those using a groovy pencil or touch typing recorded more decipherable words when taking notes from listening compared to stylus or hunting and pecking.
Key findings
01Students in both groups improved in manuscript, cursive, and keyboarding letter production from pretest to posttest.
02Group B, which used a groovy pencil or touch typing, produced more decipherable words when taking notes from heard source material than Group A, which used a stylus or hunting and pecking.
03Both groups wrote more decipherable words in summaries than in notes, regardless of whether the source material was read or heard.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study had a small sample size of 27 students, limiting the generalizability of the findings. The groups were not randomly assigned; Group A and Group B represented different cohorts using different iterations of the software, which may have introduced confounding variables. The touch typing intervention for Group B was very brief, consisting mainly of a warm-up, which may not reflect effective touch typing instruction. The study did not include a control group that received no instruction or standard school instruction, making it difficult to isolate the effect of the specific output modes from the effect of any writing instruction.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that touch typing or groovy pencils are superior for all writing tasks. The benefit for Group B was only seen in note-taking from heard source material, and both groups wrote more in summaries than in notes regardless of the tool used.