Learning to compose digitally: the effect of prior computer use and keyboard activity on NAEP writing

Abstract

Writing is critical for college and career readiness, yet secondary students in America are not good writers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). Unfortunately, researchers know relatively little about secondary students’ writing skills, and even less about their digital writing. In this study, we explored prior computer use, keyboard activity during writing, and their relations to writing achievement using the 8th grade 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress writing assessment, the first national computer-based writing assessment for U.S. secondary students. We found that prior computer use predicted students’ writing skills directly (0.08) and indirectly (e.g., keypresses, 0.14) via keyboard activity during the test. We found differential effects for certain groups including current English learners and disadvantaged students. We also found a small positive interaction effect of prior use and keypresses on writing. That is, the benefits of prior computer use for school writing and the value of students’ additional keypresses on writing achievement were amplified when both were present.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Acock, A. C. (2012). A gentle introduction to Stata (5th ed.). College Station, TX: Stata press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Applebee, A. N. (2011). Issues in large-scale writing assessment. Journal of Writing Assessment, 3(2), 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. The English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bangert-Drowns, R. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bazerman, C. (2012). Writing, cognition and affect from the perspectives of sociocultural and historical studies of writing. In: Past, present and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 89–104).

  7. Beaton, A., Rogers, A., Gonzalez, E., Hanly, M., Kolstad, A., Rust, K., et al. (2011). The NAEP Primer. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(3), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berninger, V. W., Whitaker, D., Feng, Y., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Assessment of planning, translating, and revising in junior high writers. Journal of School Psychology, 34(1), 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research. NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bruce, B., Michaels, S., & Watson-Gegeo, K. (1985). How computers can change the writing process. Language Arts, 62(2), 143–149.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Retrieved from: https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/8c/8d/8c8dfd82-b5fc-4bb9-8bd1-bb262175eaf4/ccny_report_2010_tta_agenda.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb 2019.

  14. Carr, P. (2017, Oct. 31). Statement on NAEP’s transition to digitally based assessments. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/dba/statement.aspx. Accessed 19 Feb 2019.

  15. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7. Accessed 19 Feb 2019.

  16. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills & knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Education Psychology, 94(4), 687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Deane, P., Sabatini, J., & Fowles, M. (2012). Rethinking K-12 writing assessment to support best instructional practices. In International advances in writing research: Cultures, places, measures (pp. 83–101).

  18. DeVoss, D. N., Eidman-Aadahl, E., & Hicks, T. (2010). Because digital writing matters: Improving student writing in online and multimedia environments. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 2(1), 3–51.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Graham, S., Bruch, J., Fitzgerald, J., Friedrich, L., Furgeson, J., Greene, K., et al. (2016). Teaching secondary students to write effectively (NCEE 2017-4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov. Accessed 19 Feb 2019.

  22. Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., Harris, K., & Fishman, E. (2017). The relationship among strategic writing behavior, writing motivation, and writing performance with young, developing writers. The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 82–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson, E. G. (1992). The design of the national assessment of educational progress. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(2), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kent, S. C., & Wanzek, J. (2016). The relationship between component skills and writing quality and production across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last 25 years. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 570–601. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315619491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leu, D., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Little, T. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000, Montreal.

  32. Messick, S., Beaton, A., & Lord, F. (1983). National assessment of educational progress reconsidered: a new design for a new era.

  33. Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing, 25(3), 641–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2010). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  35. National Center for Education Research and National Center for Special Education Research. (2017). Future directions for writing research at the secondary level. Technical Working Group Meeting Summary Report. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncer/whatsnew/techworkinggroup/pdf/WritingTWG.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb 2019.

  36. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: An overview of procedures for the NAEP Assessment. (NCES-2009-493). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  37. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011. (NCES 2012-4700) Institute of Education Sciences, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb 2019.

  38. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014a). Lessons learned from the 2012 Grade 4 writing computer-based assessment Study. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/lessons/default.aspx. Accessed 19 Feb 2019.

  39. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014b). NAEP 2012 pilot writing computer-based assessment study–Grade 4: Technical memorandum. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Peterson, S. S., & McClay, J. K. (2012). Assumptions and practices in using digital technologies to teach writing in middle-level classrooms across Canada. Literacy, 46(3), 140–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education, and the Social Sciences, 2(1), 13–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66).

  43. Purcell, K., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). The impact of digital tools on student writing and how writing is taught in schools. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rogers, A., Stoeckel, J., & Sikali, E. (2013). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2011 writing assessment restricted-use data files data companion. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy (Vol. 198, No. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (in press). What’s in a Keystroke? Analysis of the 2011 NAEP Computer-Based 8th Grade Writing Assessment.

  47. Tate, T., Warschauer, M., & Abedi, J. (2016). The effects of prior computer use on computer-based writing: The 2011 NAEP writing assessment. Computers & Education, 101, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Van Ittersum, D. (2011). Augmenting LITERACY: The role of expertise in digital writing. Composition Studies, 39(2), 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the cloud: How (and why) to transform schools with digital media. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Yim, S., Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., & Lawrence, J. (2014). Cloud-Based collaborative writing and the common core standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(3), 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Participation, interaction, and academic achievement in an online discussion environment. Computers & Education, 84, 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zwick, R. (1987). Assessing the dimensionality of NAEP reading data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(4), 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by funding from the Spencer Foundation, Grant 201500153. This work is based on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Writing Restricted-Use Data, available from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES Pub. No. 2014476). https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/researchcenter/datatools.aspx.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamara P. Tate.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tate, T.P., Warschauer, M. & Kim, Y.G. Learning to compose digitally: the effect of prior computer use and keyboard activity on NAEP writing. Read Writ 32, 2059–2082 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09940-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Writing
  • NAEP
  • Digital
  • Middle school
  • Literacy