Section I: Chapter 2: Review of Literature: Development of Keyboarding Skills: Research: Theory & Research: Universal Design for Learning: CAST

It is estimated that between 5% and 15% of individuals in the population of school age children in the United States suffer from some form of specific learning disability (Biklen & Zollers, 1986; Kline & Lee, 1972; Meyers & Hammill, 1990). As a society we have attempted through various means to address the problems of these students. Perhaps the most far-reaching attempt is PL 94-142, the landmark 1975 Federal legislation mandating the provision of a "free and appropriate public education" to all students, including those with handicaps.

Remedial Efforts are Not Always Successful

Significant resources have been allocated to the remediation of learning disabilities, and some success has been achieved. However, according to many reports serious deficits in writing skills have been particularly persistent even when reading disabilities have been successfully addressed (Bain, 1976; Ganschow, 1983; Johnson & Myklebust, 1978; Menyuk & Flood, 1981; Phelps & Stempel, 1987; Roit & McKenzie, 1985; Rubin & Liberman, 1983).

Handwriting is Particularly Problematic

Fine motor deficits are commonly seen among individuals with learning disabilities, and these deficits can directly affect the ability to acquire and demonstrate handwriting skills (Bannatyne, 1968; Bartholomae, 1980; Cox, 1985; Cruickshank, Bentzen, Ratzeburt, & Tanhauser, 1961; Houck & Billingsley, 1989; Johnson, 1987; Maeland, 1992; Mann & Suiter, 1978; Rice, 1976). For these students, writing by hand frequently presents an exquisitely painful and difficult challenge. As a result of the difficulty that learning disabled students experience, resistance to any form of writing activity is common (Meyer & Pisha, 1987; Pisha, 1989).

Handwriting Can Affect Teachers' Ratings of Written Work

Despite the best efforts of teachers to avoid penalizing students for their lack of motor control, a significant contribution to the overall evaluation of written work is attributable to the "face", or the physical appearance of the piece (Briggs, 1970; Bull & Stevens, 1979; Markham, 1976; Phelps & Stempel, 1987). So, not only must students with learning disabilities struggle to produce written work, they are likely to receive lower grades than their normally developing peers for equivalent writings simply because of their work's appearance.

Writing is a Complex Task

Due to the number of discrete activities that writers must carry out simultaneously as they write and the particular demands of physically producing written output, writing by hand imposes a significant cognitive load. In addition to the content of the message that they wish to convey, writers must attend to spelling, grammar, word choice, and the formation of individual letters (Collins & Gentner, 1980; Flower & Hayes, 1980; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Hayes & Flower, 1980). This constitutes a major cognitive juggling act and it is not surprising that some, especially individuals with identified learning disabilities, cannot manage. These students consistently achieve unsatisfactory results and low grades. They frequently become chronically frustrated with writing tasks in general.

A Process Approach to Writing May Allow Some Simplification

One response to the challenges that this cognitive juggling act presents for emerging writers has been the development of the process approach to writing instruction. The most salient characteristic of this approach is that writing is broken down into several steps--planning, drafting, writing, revision, editing, and publishing. Writers are taught to focus explicitly on one of these steps at a time. Students are encouraged to suspend attention to the other elements or phases when they work on one, though shifting between phases is encouraged and the process is explicitly presented as recursive, not linear in nature.

Based at least in part upon pioneering work in reading and cognitive psychology (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), this initiative found its roots and its strongest proponents in educators who focused upon mainstream educational settings, primarily in the elementary grades (Elbow, 1981; Graves, 1982; Graves, 1985a; Graves, 1985b; Graves, 1978; Holdzkon, Reed, Porter, & Rubin, 1984; Murray, 1968; Murray, 1984). Large numbers of schools nation-wide have adopted process oriented instruction as a keystone of their language arts programs.

Is A Process Approach Appropriate for Students With Learning Disabilities?

Some research has addressed the appropriateness of this method of instruction for students with learning disabilities. Advocates of the process approach have had to contend with a clear need for specific instruction in the most elemental of basic writing skills: penmanship, sound-symbol correspondence, and spelling. However, an approach that allows individuals to narrow the focus of their attention and concentrate on individual components of the complex writing activity one-at-a-time, rather than simultaneously (Flower & Hayes, 1980), is quite appealing on face. In recent years both theoretical arguments (Bos, 1988), and a published case study (Moulton & Bader, 1985) have made strong arguments for the application of the process approach to writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. A recent volume (Bain, Baillet, & Moats, 1990) has devoted considerable discussion to the application of these principles to the practice of remediation of written language deficits.

Process Writing Requires Numerous Rewrites

Despite the promise that the process approach holds for students with learning disabilities, it is clear that if instruction and writing are to follow this method, a daunting amount of writing and rewriting are required as writers move through successive phases (Elbow, 1981; Graves, 1982; Graves, 1985a; Graves, 1985b; Graves, 1978; Murray, 1968; Murray, 1984; Owston, Murphey, & Wideman, 1992). This text production requirement imposes a particular burden upon individuals with motoric deficits. For these students, handwriting is painfully produced and frequently illegible (Grinnell, 1988; Johnson, 1987; McAndrew, 1990; Phelps & Stempel, 1987; Rice, 1976; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1982). As a result, the copious recopying required by the process approach is frequently met with protracted resistance from students with learning disabilities, who are reluctant to revise and rewrite text that they have already produced at great effort. This is particularly true in the final phases of the process, when the quality of the writing is expected to be "ready for publication", or attractive enough to be posted on the classroom bulletin board or otherwise distributed. Students with disabilities affecting handwriting are painfully aware that their handwritten output can measure up to neither teacher-produced examples nor to the work of their peers. This resistance has been documented in a number of articles, including Meyer & Pisha, (1987); Pisha, (1989); Pisha, (1988); and Owston et al., (1992).

Personal Computers Show Promise as Writing Tools

Coincident with the emergence of the Process Approach to Writing Instruction has come the introduction and rapid increase in the availability of relatively inexpensive personal computers equipped with powerful programs for word processing (Becker, 1983; Becker, 1986b; Becker, 1986c). The introduction of this technology into American schools has lead a number of researchers to investigate the potential benefits of its application to the writing process (Balajthy, 1986; Balajthy, 1988; Barrett & Paradis, 1988; Bean, 1983; Bridwell & Duin, 1985; Bridwell, Nancarrow, & Ross, 1984; Brown, 1985; Caroll & Mack, 1983; Collier, 1983; Collins, 1983; Collins, 1990; Cross & Curley, 1984; Daiute, 1985; Frase, Kiefer, Smith, & Fox, 1985; Guddemi, 1987; Guddemi & Mills, 1989; Hawisher, 1987; Hooper, 1986; Hoot & Silvern, 1988; Katz & Hoffman, 1987; Knapp, 1986; Kurland, Levine, Olson, Ruopp, Smith, & Wheeler, 1988; Kurth, 1987; Madian, 1986; Outhred, 1989; Owston et al., 1992; Parson, 1985; Phenix & Hannan, 1984; Rubin & Bruce, 1983; Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLean, Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989; Schanck, 1986; Schwartz, 1985; Schwartz, Van Der Geest, & Smit-Kreuzen, 1992; Sharples, 1985; Silvern, 1988; Smith, 1987; Strickland, 1986; Vaughn, Schumm, & Gordon, 1993; Wetzel, 1987; Willer, 1984; Willinsky, 1990; Woodruff, Bereiter, & Scardamalia, 1981-82; Zinsser, 1983). It has been reported that students who use word processors are able to generate more written output, make more meaningful revisions in successive drafts, and make fewer spelling errors than do students who write without computers (Daiute, 1985; Vacc, 1987; Vaughn et al., 1993).

Some Authorities Question the Use of Personal Computers as Writing Tools

However, computer assisted writing instruction and word processing are not without detractors. Objections have been raised on creative-aesthetic grounds, suggesting the technology is incompatible with the intensely personal process of creating meaningful writing (Haas & Hayes, 1986; Simpson, 1988) and at least one critic strenuously maintains that despite some superficial signs suggesting improvement in writing among students using word processors, the actual written output is unimproved or perhaps even inferior to that produced using pencil or pen (Hawisher, 1986; Hawisher, 1987). Daiute (1986), however, presents empirical data suggesting that when students use word processors they tend to correct more errors and add more to their writings during revision than they do when they work in pen. Another finding of this study is that holistic ratings of students' word processed writings tended to be higher than ratings of the same students' handwritten essays, even when the handwritten papers are typed by the investigators prior to holistic scoring.

Though word processing as a tool for writing instruction is not universally accepted, the vast majority of studies suggest that the use of word processors can effectively augment modern writing instruction. Further, the continued growth of the use of this technology in classrooms suggests that practitioners in the field are seeing results that appear to justify spending the time and money necessary to make computer-assisted writing available to their students.

Are a Process Approach to Writing and Personal Computers Appropriate for use By Students With Learning Disabilities?

In parallel with these developments in research and practice, other researchers undertook investigations focusing on a group of students who experience particular difficulty with writing, students with learning disabilities (Collins & Price, 1986; Fais, Wanderman, & Craig, 1988; Graham & MacArthur, 1988; Grandgenett, Lloyd, & Hill, 1990; Griffey, 1986; Hoffman & Welk, 1986; Jacobi, 1986; MacArthur, 1988a; MacArthur, 1988b; MacArthur & Shneiderman, 1986; Messerer & Lerner, 1989; Meyer & Rose, 1987b; Morocco & Neuman, 1985; Morocco & Neuman, 1986; Morocco & Neuman, 1987a; Morocco & Neuman, 1987b; Morocco & Neuman, 1988; Neuman & Morocco, 1985; Pisha, 1987; Pompian & Thum, 1988; Vacc, 1987). Meyer, Pisha, & Rose (1991) suggest that students with learning disabilities who are allowed to complete writing assignments on computer word processors show increased willingness to struggle with the challenging writing process, and so not only receive direct benefits from access to this technology, but also experience secondary gains in the areas of general motivation and self-concept. This line of research is far from conclusive, but these early results show clear promise for the development of improved techniques for teaching writing skills to students with learning disabilities.

Keyboarding Skills Have Not Received Much Attention in Recent Years

Daiute (1985) has pointed out that students need some level of keyboarding proficiency to effectively use word processors for writing. However a minimum required level of keyboarding speed and an estimate of the amount of instructional resources that might be required to reach proficiency have yet to be empirically established. Daiute noted that a group of 11 and 12 year olds she studied could not type as rapidly as they could handwrite, even after six months of writing with a word processor. Setting these concerns aside for the moment, what other sorts of gains can be expected as students master keyboarding?

Can We Expect Secondary Gains From Keyboarding?

For almost 100 years educators have been interested in the potential of the typewriter to improve academic performance. Kasson (1895) vigorously praised the then new machines and suggested, based upon his classroom experience, that students who used typewriters produced more and higher quality written work marred by fewer spelling errors than could be produced with the hand writing implements of the time. As is the case with most studies of this vintage, these assertions are backed by few solid facts and no quantitative analyses. Later, however, (Wood & Freeman, 1932) a large scale study, was mounted to address the potential of the typewriter in schools. This study, which was carried out using reasonably modern methodology and a sample of over a thousand elementary school aged students, provided convincing evidence for the efficacy of typewriter use in schools. These researchers found no measurable differences in the reading scores of the subjects who used typewriters and those who did not in the first two grades, but thereafter found generalized gains on Stanford Achievement Test scores among the subjects who used typewriters. Interestingly, the greatest gains were seen in the area of Mathematics Computation, which was not satisfactorily explained by the authors, and in Spelling. These Spelling gains were attributed to the ability of subjects using typewriters to make a better match between their typewritten output and printed models. Reportedly, that allowed these students to correct their own errors more efficiently on a day-to-day basis and so to improve their rate of learning in Spelling (Wood & Freeman, 1932). These authors advocated direct instruction in typing, though the study is unclear about what form this ought to take. They found that, after one year of typewriter use, their subjects could type as rapidly as they could handwrite. Further, these authors demonstrated that, despite the instruction and practice time spent typing rather than handwriting their schoolwork, the handwriting of the students who used typewriters was no worse than the handwriting of the control group who received continuing handwriting instruction and worked exclusively with pen and pencil. While more research is necessary to confirm these findings, they may prove reassuring to teachers who fear that time spent in keyboarding instruction must necessarily detract from handwriting accomplishment.

Despite this persuasive study and others that followed it and supported its conclusions, (Ainsa, 1991; Haefner, 1932; Haefner, 1936; Haefner, 1937; Kaake, 1983) a movement to thrust typewriters into mainstream education never developed. Typing instruction was relegated to vocational departments of high schools and keyboards were rare in other classrooms for many years, until the advent of the personal computer. It is impossible to determine why this transpired, but it seems likely that the timing of the Wood and Freeman study, during the heart of the Great Depression, was unfortunate in that there was insufficient money available even to maintain orthodox educational programs. There was certainly no money available to purchase powerful but expensive new machines for school use. Sadly, the same arguments echo today when efforts are made to increase the density of personal computers in schools.

More recently some attention has been paid to the potential of the typewriter alone to improve the achievement of individuals with special needs. No study of the magnitude of Wood and Freeman's has been mounted to examine the potential of typewriters for this population, but several smaller experiments have pointed towards similar, though less dramatic, gains among individuals with special needs when they are allowed to use typewriters for written expression (Campbell, 1973; Kaake, 1983; Vacc, 1987). It seems reasonable to assume that these benefits, if they can be correctly attributed to typewriter use, will also accrue from the use of computer word processors.

Who Will Require Keyboarding Skills?

The population that can benefit from keyboarding skills has expanded from a relatively narrow subset of students bound for clerical careers to include virtually every student who aspires to the most basic levels of literacy. College bound students, who in previous generations assumed that they would handwrite their essays and then pass them to a "typist" who would type them up for submission, are finding that by word processing their own papers, they can exercise more control over their results and avoid the inconvenience of having a draft completed in time to send out to a typist who may require several days to complete the work.

Computers have also made major inroads into the workplace and the society as a whole within the last generation. Computer skills are now necessary for the employment-bound student. Until a more satisfactory method of entering information into these machines and controlling their operations is perfected, the primary connection between the computer and the computer user remains the keyboard. For the foreseeable future it will be important for everyone who will need to use a computer to attain at least a minimal proficiency in keyboarding.

Transcription Typing is Less Important Than It Once Was

Transcription typing from a model is no longer a much sought-after skill in most corporate settings. The stenographer and his/her pad have been largely replaced by the Dictaphone, eliminating the intermediate step of shorthand transcription between the oral composition of a letter or memo and the physical writing of the piece at a computer or typewriter keyboard. Computers equipped with scanners and optical character recognition software allow entry of many types of printed materials into the computer much more rapidly than a human typist can do the work. To train students to become "typists" is to train them for jobs that are declining in both number and relevance.

Keyboarding is Different from Traditional Typing

For many teachers and others, typing, in the way it has been conceived and taught for decades, poses a major obstacle to computer-assisted writing instruction. The current study addresses, among other issues, the need to reconceptualize the keyboarding skills needed today. Historically, these skills have been addressed under the heading of "typing", and have been seen as useful to only a relatively small subset of learners, those who intend to enter the business world immediately after high school. Students have been subjected to detailed sequences of drills designed to teach correct fingering and the ability to type rapidly and accurately from a model without looking at the keyboard. Speed and accuracy in this transcription task have been measured, and a successful student has been one who can type from a model at 50 or 60 words per minute, adjusted for accuracy. In many cases, the correct forms of the friendly letter, the business letter, the memo, and other stereotyped forms of business writing have also been taught, but little attention has been paid in this context to composition, the ability to use typing to express ideas (Davies, 1982; Oliver, Wegner, Thill-Ritter, & Hynek, 1986; Russon & Wanous, 1960; Showel, 1974).

Distinctions between transcription typing from a model and generative typing of the typist's own ideas have also been recognized in the most complete modern book on keyboarding (Cooper, 1983). Cooper notes that typing has traditionally been interpreted as the transcription of existing information into typewritten form and that it is the spread of computer word processing technology that has expanded the number of users who practice generative typing from the relatively small pool of professional authors to include a much broader range of people in many professions.

Perhaps the best summary of the differences between traditional typing and keyboarding, as it should be taught today, is to be found in a 1986 publication of the New York State Education Department (Lalor, Algozzine, & Daggett, 1986). The following table is reproduced from that source.

Four Important Differences Between Keyboarding and Typing

The differences cited in Table 1 can be grouped into four categories: Speed, formatting, error handling, and input/output assumptions. Keyboarding speed is seen by both Lalor et al. and the current author as important, in that it is a measure of fluency and of the amount of cognitive capacity that must be committed to the physical aspects of writing. However, the speed at which writers can produce is limited by the rate at which they can generate ideas, and this rate is certainly slower than trained fingers can type (Russell, McWhirter, Boehm, Smith, Benagh, & Jones, 1987). So, speed retains some importance, but only in that increased automaticity can free up resources for other elements of the writing process. Familiarity with key elements of positioning and keyboard layout are substituted for highly developed proficiencies. Rates of keying considerably slower than the criterion established for traditional transcription typists (Larochelle, 1983; Oliver et al., 1986) are considered adequate for generative writing tasks.

Because computer word processors both simplify formatting and make it possible to add or modify formatting after text has been entered, Lalor et al. would exclude the tedious manual formatting skills traditionally taught in typing classes from keyboarding instruction. Business communication formats such as letters and memos are also omitted, because only some fraction of students will use their keyboarding skills in the business environment and these students can obtain further specialized instruction prior to joining the work force.

Recognition that error in a computer environment is not as serious nor as immutable as it is in the typewriter and paper environment underlies the preferred method of correction in modern keyboarding. Because computers make correction easier, errors can be treated more casually and the inhibition that results from excessive attention to the details of written production at the earlier stages of the writing process can be avoided. Lalor et al. explicitly state that backspacing and replacing is the most important skill for the management of error. Lift-off and correction fluids are viewed as obsolete relics, like blotters.

The last area, input/output emphasis, captures the most critical differences between traditional typing and modern keyboarding: The traditional approach to typing instruction assumes that the typist will be typing out the thoughts of another. Modern approaches to keyboarding reflect the realization that the keyboarder of today will usually be recording her/his own thoughts (Lalor et al., 1986). The evolution of the underlying assumptions about the nature of the work that the keyboard user will eventually perform reflects the changes that the role of the keyboard has undergone as a result of the recent proliferation of computers. The keyboard is no longer a tool primarily for the secretary or the clerk; it's a tool for everyone.

Unfortunately, it appears that practice has not kept up with developments in computer technology nor with Lalor et. al. A search of the literature reveals few writings by other educators who have given the differences between traditional typing instruction and keyboarding instruction as much careful thought as have Lalor and her collaborators. However, one exception to this is Edward Fry, who has long championed keyboarding instruction (Fry, 1988; Fry, 1969; Fry, 1984). Still, it appears that, on the basis of evidence presented thus far, keyboarding and word processing are important for all students, and are particularly important for students with learning disabilities.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature, Section I

Learning Disabilities are Relatively Common Among Children