Smartphone tapping vs. handwriting: A comparison of writing medium

Bradford J. Lee

Abstract

Mobile-learning (m-learning), or mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), has been the object of a great deal of research over the last twenty years. However, empirical work in this area has largely failed to produce generalizable conclusions due to variation in methodology, target feature, and task-type (Burston, 2014, 2015). As schools in Japan begin to join the growing number of classrooms worldwide using mobile-based assignments, this study examined how Japanese EFL students’ writing task production differed depending on writing medium (i.e., handwritten on paper vs. tapped on a smartphone). Writing samples were collected from N = 1,449 participants, divided into smartphone- or paper-based groups, across a spectrum of English proficiencies. Handwritten submissions were found to be significantly longer than those composed on a smartphone (p < .001, d = .54), with differences being more pronounced for learners of higher proficiency than lower ones. Significance and effect sizes steadily dropped from p < .001, d = .66 for advanced learners to p = .168, d = .38 for beginners. These results indicate that care must be taken in designing m-learning activities, and that students must be given adequate training in smartphone-input skills (i.e., tapping) and time to acclimate before using such tasks for high-stakes assessments.


Keywords

m-learning; Mobile-Assisted Language Learning; tapping; handwriting; writing task

Full Text:

PDF

References

Baron, D. (2009). A better pencil: Readers, writers, and the digital revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beare, K. (2018, October 8). How many people learn English? https://www.thoughtco.com/howmany-people-learn-english-globally-1210367.

Burston, J. (2014). The reality of MALL: Still on the fringes. CALICO Journal, 31(1), 103125. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.31.1.103-125

Burston, J. (2015). Twenty years of MALL project implementation: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. ReCALL, 27(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000159

Collier, R., & Werier, C. (1995). When computer writers compose by hand. Computers and Composition, 12(1), 47-59.

https://doi.org/10.1016/8755-4615(95)90022-5

Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 479-492. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X116768

Chen, Y., Carger, C. L., & Smith, T. J. (2017). Mobile-assisted narrative writing practice for young English language learners from a funds of knowledge approach. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 28-41. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44594.

Elgort, I. (2017). Blog posts and traditional assignments by first- and second-language writers. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 52-72. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44611.

Ellis, R. (1997). The interaction hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Paper presented at the Regional Language Center Seminar, Singapore, April 22-28, 1991.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 318. https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hilldale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gentile, C., Riazantseva, A., & Cline, F. (2001). A comparison of handwritten and word processed TOEFL essays: Final report. (TOEFL Research Council). Princeton, NJ: ETS.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 3-17. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44607.

Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811238

James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1(1), 3242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2012.08.001

James, K. H., & Gauthier, I. (2006). Letter processing automatically recruits a sensory-motor brain network. Neuropsychologia, 44(14), 29372949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.06.026

Kiefer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, N., Hille, K., & Sachse, S. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen- or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 136146. https://dx.doi.org/10.5709%2Facp-0178-7

Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800015329

Lee, B. (2019a). Japanese tertiary students' access to smartphones and their feelings regarding their use in the EFL classroom. Memoirs of Fukui University of Technology, 49, 216-224.

Lee, B. (2019b). A case study of writing task performance: Smartphone input vs. handwriting. Memoirs of Fukui University of Technology, 49, 225-231.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3

Longcamp, M., Zerbato-Poudou, M-T., & Velay, J. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019

Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J., & Velay, J. (2006). Remembering the orientation of newly learned characters depends on the associated writing knowledge: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Human Movement Science, 25(4-5), 646656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2006.07.007

Mangen, A., & Velay, J. (2010). Digitizing literacy: Reflections on the haptics of writing. In M. H. Zadeh (Ed.), Advances in Haptics. IntechOpen, 385-401. https://doi.org/10.5772/8710

Matsuo, K., Kato, C., Okada, T., Moriya, T., Glover, G., & Nakai, T. (2003). Finger movements lighten neural loads in the recognition of ideographic characters. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00114-9

Mogey, N., Paterson, J., Burk, J., & Purcell, M. (2010). Typing compared with handwriting for essay examinations at university: letting the students choose. ALT-J, 18(1), 2947. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687761003657580

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 11591168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581

Nyugaku, N., Koyama, M., Lee, B., & Thomson. S. (2017). On the application of communicative approach in English education at Fukui University of Technology. (Japanese language). Memoirs of Fukui University of Technology, 47, 373-381.

Petrescu, A. (2014). Typing or writing? A dilemma of the digital era. eLearning & Software for Education, 2, 393-397. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026x-14-115

Plato. (c. 370 B.C.) Phaedrus [EPub]. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1636.epub.images?session_id=723fa a18883337783d2449c2a9d8e262a8cad15b.

Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is "big"? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878-912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

Tsai, C.-H., Kuo, C.-H., Horng, W.-B., & Chen, C.-W. (2012). Effects on learning logographic character formation in computer-assisted handwriting instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 110-130. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44277.

Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Bangert, A. W. (1996). A study of word processing experience and its effects on student essay writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.2190/XTDU-J5L2-WTPP-91W2

Wolfe, E. W. & Manalo, J. R. (2004). Composition medium comparability in a direct writing assessment of non-native English speakers. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 53- 65. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25229.

Abstract Views

2959
Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Licencia Creative Commons

This journal is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Universitat Politècnica de València

e-ISSN: 1695-2618    http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/eurocall