Keyboarding for Students

Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

with Handwriting Problems:

A Literature Review
Andrew R. Freeman
Joyce R. MacKinnon
Linda T. Miller
For personal use only.

ABSTRACT. A literature review is presented regarding keyboarding for

school students experiencing handwriting difficulties. Despite the overall
dearth of research, some general conclusions appear warranted. Students
need to be able to keyboard at least as fast as they can handwrite and
should learn the touch-keyboarding method if possible. Appropriate in-
struction appears critical for the development of keyboarding compe-
tency. The upper elementary age is an appropriate time to start teaching
keyboarding, with students possibly requiring 25-30 total hours of instruc-
tion. Students experiencing handwriting difficulties might need customized
goals and strategies. Although the existing literature regarding the role of
performance components in keyboarding provides some direction to clini-
cians, further investigation is required. [Article copies available for a fee from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Andrew R. Freeman, MS, OT Reg. (Ont.), is Doctoral Candidate in Rehabilitation

Sciences Program, Joyce R. MacKinnon, PhD, OT Reg. (Ont.), is Associate Dean (Pro-
grams), and Linda T. Miller, PhD, is Associate Dean (Scholarships) Faculty of Health
Sciences, the University of Western Ontario, 1201 Western Road, London, Ontario,
Canada N6G 1H1.
The authors thank Dr. Doreen Bartlett for her helpful review of this paper.
Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, Vol. 25(1/2) 2005
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/POTP
2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J006v25n01_08 119
 120 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

KEYWORDS. Keyboarding, handwriting, assistive technology

Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

INTRODUCTION

There are several potentially serious consequences for students experi-

encing handwriting difficulties that can constrain the students develop-
ment of writing skills, and lead them to avoid academic tasks requiring
writing (MacArthur, 2000). A variety of approaches have been used by
therapists to assist students experiencing handwriting difficulties (Feder,
Majnemer, & Synnes, 2000; Rigby & Schwellnus, 1999; Woodward &
Swinth, 2002) including, for example, the recommendation of various
technology solutions (Freeman, MacKinnon, & Miller, 2004; Priest &
May, 2001; Reed & Kanny, 1993). Within the range of technology solu-
tions that can be recommended are various keyboard-related options such
For personal use only.

as Desktop and Laptop computers, and Alternate Output Devices (e.g.,

AlphaSmart 3000, DreamWriter 450).
There are a number of potential advantages to using a keyboard to pro-
duce written work. For example, by simplifying text production, children
might be better able to concentrate on the content and meaning of their
work (MacArthur, 2000). The written work produced might be neater and
more legible (Klein et al., 2003; MacArthur, 2000), and the students con-
fidence and motivation to complete written work might be increased
(Penso, 1990). On the other hand, keyboarding can impose new burdens
(Lewis, Graves, Ashton, & Kieley, 1998; Penso, 1999). Students who
lack keyboarding competency are reportedly inefficient in their use of
keyboards (Cochran-Smith, Kahn, & Paris, 1988). The attention required
by keyboarding and the slower rate of production might negatively affect
the length and quality of writing (Dunn & Reay, 1989) and represent no
advantage over handwriting (McCutchen, 1995). Students might become
frustrated and develop negative attitudes about word processing (Seawel,
Smaldino, Steele, & Lewis, 1994). Many researchers have argued that a
reasonable level of keyboarding proficiency is necessary in order to suc-
cessfully use this technology (Crealock & Sitko, 1990; MacArthur, Gra-
ham, & Schwartz, 1993). Congruent with this view, therapists who
consider recommending keyboarding technology for students with hand-
writing difficulties want to ensure to the greatest extent possible that these
students will be successful with this strategy (Klein et al., 2003; Rogers &
Case-Smith, 2002).
This article provides a review of the literature regarding keyboarding
for school students, with a specific focus on children experiencing
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 121

handwriting difficulties for whom keyboarding might be considered an

appropriate solution. Keyboarding in this context refers to finger text
entry on a regular computer keyboard. This review may be less directly
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

pertinent to children who are unable, due to physical impairments, to in-

put text onto a regular keyboard using their fingers.

LITERATURE REVIEW METHOD

The PsychINFO, CINAHL, and ERIC databases were searched for

this review, using several search terms (e.g., keyboard, keyboarding,
typing). A considerable number of the publications located were gen-
eral discussion articles and booklets in which the research basis for the
keyboarding-related guidelines proposed was inconsistently provided
(e.g., Kisner, 1984; National Business Education Association, 1992).
For personal use only.

The current review has been restricted primarily to a discussion of the

published research investigations. Contact the first author for a copy of
a table summary of this literature.
The terms keyboarding and typing have typically been used in the
literature when referring to text entry conducted respectively with a
computer and typewriter. In this review, keyboarding is used as a ge-
neric term that includes, in the case of some less recent publications, the
experiences of children who used typewriters. In contrast to some defi-
nitions of keyboarding, in this review the term keyboarding does not
necessarily signify touch-keyboarding, that is, maintaining finger place-
ment on the home row keys and rarely looking at the keyboard while en-
tering text.

KEYBOARDING SPEED

It is presumed in this review that the primary keyboarding speed re-

quirement for school students is for compositional rather than copying
tasks. A research basis has not been provided in the literature for many
of the student keyboarding speed recommendations.
Kahn and Freyd (1990b) proposed, based on their study involving 34
Grade 6 students, that it would be inappropriate and probably unproductive
to demand that all children acquire some minimum generic keyboarding
speed. In the investigation, the students demonstrated a wide range of
both handwriting and keyboarding speeds. Somewhat congruent with
this child-based criterion, other authors recommended that students
 122 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

should be able to keyboard at least as fast as they can write by hand

(Dunn & Reay, 1989; MacArthur et al., 1993). This speed-equiva-
lency proposal is based on the assumption that children at a similar
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

grade/age level handwrite at generally similar speeds, and that their

keyboarding speed only needs to be at least similar in order to be suffi-
cient. One possible limitation of this proposal for children experiencing
handwriting speed difficulties is that these students may require their
keyboarding speed to be distinctly faster than their handwriting speed in
order for it to be useful. The findings of Dunn and Reays investigation
provide some support for the speed equivalency proposal. In this
study, conducted with 52 students aged 12-13 years experiencing diffi-
culties with written composition, it was found that students whose
keyboarding speed equaled or exceeded their handwriting speed dem-
onstrated greater competence in the content of narrative writing when
using a word processor than when handwriting. Conversely, when stu-
For personal use only.

dents keyboarding speed was less than their handwriting speed, they
demonstrated less competency in the content of the narrative writing
when using the word processor than when handwriting.
The proposed benefit of acquiring a minimum keyboarding speed
level, such as handwriting speed equivalency, is to decease the amount
of attention required to produce written work (Pisha, 1993). Similar to
the argument made with respect to handwriting (Berninger, 1999), at
this minimum rate of keyboarding and above, text entry theoretically
becomes almost automatic and a students attention can be freed up for
other cognitive processing tasks such as composing (Anderson, 1985).
A broad range of attained keyboarding speeds, both within and outside
grade levels, has been reported in the research, summarized in Table 1.
What is apparent in Table 1 is a trend for increased keyboarding speed
across increasing grade level. However, comparison of speed across
grade levels and across studies is made difficult because: (1) keyboarding
speeds were often not reported exclusively for one age or grade level;
(2) grade levels across studies may not necessarily include students of
the same chronological age; (3) the comparability of keyboarding
speeds obtained using typewriters versus computer keyboards is not
certain since keyboarding on electronic equipment involves relatively
instant and easy error correction (Arnold, Joyner, Schmidt, & White,
1997); (4) a considerable range of objectives were pursued across the
various studies; and (5) different metrics for reporting keyboarding
speed were used. With respect to this last issue, three keyboarding speed
metrics have been reported in the literature, that is, Gross Words Per/A
Minute (GWPM/GWAM), Words Per Minute (WPM) and Characters
 Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13
For personal use only.

TABLE 1. Keyboarding Speed Summary (Words Per Minute Mean Speeds)

Grades K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Studies
1 5
2
3 9* 9* 22 - 30* 31-70*
4 8 11
5 5.3
6 9.9-12.3
7 10.9 - 13.7
8 10
9 14.8
10 8.2
11 24.5
12 13
13 20.6 19.7
14 12.2
15 14.8 - 20
16 48.4 CPM
17 10.1
18 14.9
19 17.4 20.7 20.2
20 7.1
21 8
22 40
23 12.4
24 4.7
25 8.25 - 8.6
26 20.1 27.0 37.6
Range 9 5-9 9.9 - 30 7.1 - 30 4.7 - 70 4.7 - 70 4.7 - 20.7 4.7 - 27.0 8.25 - 27.0 8.25 - 27.0 8.25 - 37.6 8.25 - 37.6

* median speeds
Authors: (1) Chwirka, Gurney, & Burtner, P.A. (2002); (2) Cowles, Hedley, & Robinson (1983) Age 5-6: Words; Ages 7-8: Words & sentences; (3) Erickson, cited in National Business Educa-
tion Association (1992); (4) Behymer & Echternacht (1987); (5) Britten (1988); (6) Shorter (2001); (7) Sormunen (1988); (8) Wetzel (1985); (9) Pisha (1993); (10) Warwood, Hartman,
Hauwiller, & Taylor (1985); (11) Sormunen (1991); (12) Dybdahl & Shaw (1989); (13) Hall (1985); (14) Gerlach (1987); (15) Kercher & McClurg (1985); (16) Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub,
(2004) (17) Kahn & Freyd (1990b); (18) Rogers & Case-Smith (2002); (19) Morrow (1989); (20) Crealock & Sitko (1990); (21) MacArthur, Graham, & Schwartz (1993); (22) Ray (1977);
(23) Kameda & Freeman (2004); (24) Okolo, Hinsey, & Yousefian (1990); (25) Okolo (1993); Schmidt & White (1989).

123
 124 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

Per Minute (CPM). It is not certain that each authors definition of a par-
ticular metric is necessarily identical with that used by other authors us-
ing the same metric. GWPM, as defined by several authors, is calculated
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

by dividing the number of characters typed in one minute by five (Dunn &
Reay, 1989; Hall, 1985; Morrow, 1989; Wetzel, 1985). Some authors
used a similar definition for WPM (Pisha, 1993; Rogers & Case-Smith,
2002), suggesting that GWPM and WPM are generally comparable
metrics. Variable information was reported across the range of studies
regarding if and how keyboarding errors were calculated, and whether
the number of errors influenced the keyboarding speed measure.
The authors of the various research studies drew a range of conclusions
from the attained keyboarding speed results, reflecting the objectives of
their respective investigations. In some cases, the attained keyboarding
speeds were considered to provide evidence for the keyboarding speed that
could practically be achieved by the age/grade level of students in-
For personal use only.

volved (Chwirka, Gurney, & Burtner, 2002; Cowles, Hedley, & Robin-
son, 1983; Warwood, Hartman, Hauwiller, & Taylor, 1985; Wetzel,
1985). In some other investigations, the authors concluded that the
keyboarding speed attained was insufficient (Crealock & Sitko, 1990;
Okolo, Hinsey, & Yousefian, 1990; Shorter, 2001; Sormunen, 1988).
Given the range of objectives in the keyboarding-related investiga-
tions, and the subsequent difficulty drawing clear conclusions about
keyboarding speed norms, it is helpful to compare the keyboarding
speeds attained with handwriting speed norms (see Table 2). There is
some variability in the handwriting speeds reported, apparently reflect-
ing methodological differences in how the speeds were measured
(Ziviani & Watson-Will, 1998). Most handwriting speeds have been re-
ported as CPM. In order to facilitate the comparison with keyboarding
speed, beside each handwriting speed CPM in Table 2 a WPM conver-
sion has also been provided, obtained by dividing CPM by five.
The comparison of the keyboarding and handwriting speeds reveals that
generally, the range of handwriting speeds for each grade level is consider-
ably narrower than its keyboarding equivalent. This might be because the
purpose of the handwriting studies was typically to obtain normative data
whereas the keyboarding studies addressed a range of research objectives.
Furthermore, while students are generally presumed to have used hand-
writing to complete written work, albeit with varying amounts of formal
handwriting instruction, keyboarding speed has been measured with stu-
dents with greatly varying exposure to keyboarding as a tool for producing
written work. At this time, the handwriting speed norms, compared to the
keyboarding literature, appear to provide a more useful basis for estimating
keyboarding speed targets.
 Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13
For personal use only.

TABLE 2. Handwriting Speed Summary Mean Characters Per Minute (Words Per Minute)

Grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ayres (1912)* 55 (11) 64 (12.8) 71 (14.2)
Groff (1961) 35 (7) 41 (8.2) 50 (10)

Hamstra- Grp. 1 24 (4.8) 35 (7) 46 (9.2) 54 (10.8) 66 (13.2)

Bletz & Blte
(1990) Grp. 2 25 (5) 34 (6.8) 42 (8.4) 59 (11.8)

Grp. 3 25 (5) 39 (7.8) 49 (9.8)

Phelps, 25 (5) 37 (7.4) 47 (9.4) 57 (11.4) 62 (12.4) 72 (14.4)

Stempel, &
Speck (1985)
Ziviani & 33 (6.6) 34 (6.8) 38 (7.6) 46 (9.2) 52 (10.4)
Elkins (1984)
Ziviani & Boys 35 (7) 46 (9.2) 67 (13.4) 73 (14.6) 89 (17.8) 111 (22.2)
Watson-Will
(1998) Girls 39 (7.8) 56 (11.2) 70 (14) 83 (16.6) 83 (16.6) 85 (17)
Wallen, 54 (10.8) 57 (11.4) 64 (12.8) 81 (16.2) 94 (18.8) 100 (20) 115 (23) 116 (23.2) 124 (24.8) 133 (26.6)
Bonney, &
Lennox
(1996)
Graham, Boys 17.44 (3.5) 31.55 44.8 60.58 70.91 78.29 91.01 112.43 113.66
Weintraub, (6.3) (8.9) (12.1) (14.2) (15.7) (18.2) (22.5) (22.7)
Berninger, &
Schafer Girls 20.51 (4.1) 36.77 49.8 65.78 74.57 91.19 108.56 117.87 121.44
(1998) (7.4) (9.9) (13.2) (14.9) (18.2) (21.7) (23.6) (24.3)

Sassoon, Usual 46 (9.2) 64 (12.8) 117 (23.4)

Nimmo-
Smith, &
Wing (1986) Rapid 55 (11) 82 (16.4) 140 (28)

Range 3.5 - 4.1 4.8 - 11 5 - 11.2 6.8 - 7.6 - 9.2 - 10.4 - 14.4 - 22.7 - 23.2 - 28 24.8 26.6
(Words Per 16.4 16.6 18.2 22.2 23.6 24.3
Minute)

* cited by Ziviani & Watson-Will (1998)

125
 126 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

In summary, it seems reasonable to support the proposal that key-

boarding needs to be at least as fast as handwriting, although this guide-
line should be applied with discretion to students experiencing difficulty
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

attaining sufficient handwriting speed. The handwriting speed studies

provide a useful reference point for therapists trying to determine ap-
propriate keyboarding speed targets for students. Determining key-
boarding speeds norms cannot be separated from the issue of how much
keyboarding instruction students might typically require to achieve
these speeds, and the feasibility of providing such instruction. In addi-
tion, it is not clear whether the skill elements respectively associated with
keyboarding and handwriting are such that students are able to attain the
same keyboarding speed that they can with handwriting at the same age.

KEYBOARDING ACCURACY
For personal use only.

Some authors have factored keyboarding errors into their measures of

keyboarding speed (e.g., Dunn & Reay, 1989) although not necessarily in
a similar fashion. Others have not done this but have separately noted
keyboarding error rates (e.g., Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004). Fi-
nally, some others have made no mention of keyboarding errors (e.g.,
Shorter, 2001). Compared to handwriting, where errors might be an im-
portant contributor to overall legibility, the significance of keyboarding
errors is less easily determined (Pisha, 1993). By definition, legibility in
terms of letter clarity is not an issue for keyboarding. Overall legibility of
work produced is likely to be influenced by keyboarding accuracy only in
cases where the number of errors is extremely high. Students using hand-
writing may find themselves having to make a decision to produce writ-
ten work quickly or legibly but not both, whereas students using
keyboarding are unlikely to be faced with such a decision to anywhere
near the same extent. Arguably, for students experiencing handwriting
difficulties, if students can produce written work more quickly using
keyboarding rather than handwriting, even in the presence of a number of
inaccuracies, keyboarding might be considerably advantageous.

KEYBOARDING TECHNIQUE

It seems reasonable to support the notion, congruent with the argument

advanced regarding handwriting, that the more automatic the keyboarding
process for students, the more able they are to focus on the content rather
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 127

than mechanics of written work production. Several authors have recom-

mended that touch-typing or touch-keyboarding operation, rather than
the hunt-and-peck technique, is necessary for the efficient use of the key-
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

board (Jackson, 1991; National Business Education Association, 1992).

It appears to be presumed that students are less likely to attain the
keyboarding speed target unless they use the touch-keyboarding technique.
Furthermore, by learning touch-keyboarding technique from the start, stu-
dents will supposedly avoid learning poor keyboarding habits that are diffi-
cult to alter (Hunter, Benedict, & Bilan, 1989; Prigge & Braathen, 1993).
Little evidence has been provided in support of these claims. For children
experiencing handwriting difficulties, being able to successfully produce
legible written work might be more important in the short term than neces-
sarily using touch-keyboarding technique, notwithstanding general con-
sensus that good technique is desirable.
For personal use only.

METHOD AND TIMING OF KEYBOARDING INSTRUCTION

It is important to consider the nature of keyboarding instruction re-

quired by students because it directly relates to the feasibility of key-
boarding skill acquisition, with implications for the age/grade level at
which instruction can and should be provided. A considerable range of
keyboarding instruction recommendations, inconsistently supported by
research, has been made. In many cases, the proposals about how best to
teach keyboarding have been tied to the recommendations regarding
when it should be taught. Furthermore, the proposals have often been
based on the assumption that teaching touch-keyboarding is the best way
of achieving a desired level of keyboarding speed and accuracy.
Kahn and Freyd (1990a) argued that little formal keyboarding in-
struction is required to attain a sufficient level of competence, and that
insistence on touch-keyboarding skills, instead of making writing easier
for young children, substitutes one difficulty for another. In support of
this position, Kahn and Freyd (1990b) reported the findings of their re-
search involving 34 sixth-grade students in which the students received
no formal keyboarding training. The keyboarding speed of the students
was 6.62 WPM in October of that academic year. In lieu of formal
keyboarding instruction, the students composed and revised in pairs at
computers for approximately one hour each week. By the following
May, the mean keyboarding speed increased to 10.12 WPM, a speed not
significantly different from these childrens handwriting speed (11.4
WPM). Pisha (1989), cited by Pisha (1993), found in his study con-
 128 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

ducted with upper-elementary boys with learning disabilities that the

students were able to keyboard from a model at an average rate of 4
WPM. These students had limited keyboarding experience, and had re-
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

ceived no previous formal instruction, but still preferred word process-

ing to handwriting. Further, the students who achieved significant
increases in keyboarding speed did not practice more than other stu-
dents on the provided drill-and-practice keyboarding software. The stu-
dents who learned to keyboard rapidly were those who were allowed to
use their computers daily to complete meaningful assigned schoolwork.
No information was provided regarding the nature of the writing-related
difficulties being experienced by the students. Also, the students
perception of having attained sufficient keyboarding competence
might have been relative to their handwriting proficiency, rather than to
necessarily meeting the written work requirements; Pisha (1989) did
not report whether the level of keyboarding competency attained by the
For personal use only.

students was sufficient for these requirements. One somewhat unex-

pected result found in Crealock and Sitkos (1990) study conducted
with Grades 4-6 students with learning disabilities was that the individ-
uals in the Control group, who received no keyboarding instruction,
achieved a greater increase (from 5.4-to-15.7 WPM) in their key-
boarding speed than students who received 14 training sessions over
three months (from 2.8-to-7.1 WPM). The authors suggested that this
might have been explainable by the fact that the mean age of the Control
group members (11 years, 6 months) was higher than that of the Experi-
mental group (10 years, 5 months).
In contrast to the above findings, some research lends support to the
notion that children require formal keyboarding instruction in order to
develop competency in this area. This argument appears to be at least
partly based on the belief that keyboarding is not simple to acquire and
maintain (Gopher & Raij, 1988; Olinzock, 1998), a notion congruent
with that proposed for handwriting development (Graham & Harris,
1997). Keyboarders without formal training might therefore be obli-
gated to allocate more cognitive resources to writing output and have
less available for thinking about what is being written (Pisha, 1993). In
Brittens (1988) investigation conducted with 22 Grade 2 students, the
participants who received formal keyboard instruction (6 hours, 3 ses-
sions/week, 20 minutes/session) demonstrated significantly faster
keyboarding than the students who had the opportunity to use word pro-
cessors but received no keyboarding instruction. Yau, Ziegler and
Siegel (1990) conducted a study with 56 Grades 7-8 students with learn-
ing disabilities, in which laptop computers were provided to the stu-
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 129

dents for eight months in order to complete their written work. The
students were provided with keyboarding instruction software and en-
couraged to complete the training. Following the intervention period,
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

few of the students reported completing the keyboarding instruction.

Eight of the students were reported to have very poor keyboarding
skills. The results of this study must be viewed with caution as no spe-
cific information was provided about the students keyboarding skills
prior to or following the intervention, nor was information provided
about how the keyboarding skill rating was made.
On the basis of the current research, it is difficult to arrive at a defini-
tive conclusion regarding the need for formal keyboarding instruction.
Further research, conducted firstly with students not experiencing hand-
writing difficulties, is required that specifically compares the key-
boarding skill acquisition of students receiving versus not receiving
formal keyboarding instruction.
For personal use only.

There is considerable variety in the precise nature of the keyboarding

instruction recommended for students, and limited research to support
the positions argued. It is difficult to compare the research findings
given the different age groups of students and methods of keyboarding
instruction across the various studies. The research results concerning
the need for direct instructor supervision during keyboarding instruc-
tion are equivocal. Both Shorters (2001) and Nichols (1995) studies,
respectively conducted with Grade 3 and Grades 3-6 students, revealed
that students participating in teacher-directed keyboarding instruction
developed superior keyboarding skills compared to students solely us-
ing keyboarding instructional software. In contrast, Russin (1995) dem-
onstrated no differences with Grade 6 students. Congruent with this
latter finding, Hoot (1985), cited in Hoot (1986), found in his study of
525 Kindergarten-to-Grade 3 children that the students were very quick
to acquire keyboarding speed using a computer keyboarding program
during unscheduled times. It is difficult to evaluate Hoots findings as
no information was provided with respect to how and when key-
boarding skills were measured, nor about the specific details of the stu-
dents keyboarding skills before or after the software use. Furthermore,
no comparison was conducted in this study with students receiving di-
rect instructor involvement.
The number of hours of keyboarding instruction provided in the investi-
gations reviewed ranged from 5-to-30 hours (Mean = 12.8; Median = 10),
the frequency of keyboarding instruction ranged from two-to-five per week
(Mean = 4.1; Median = 5), and the recommended length of keyboarding
instruction sessions ranged from 20-to-45 minutes (Mean = 30.2;
 130 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

Median = 30). It should be noted that several of the authors of the stud-
ies in which fewer total hours of instruction were provided concluded
that insufficient training had been provided. In the keyboarding discus-
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

sion publications, albeit often with limited research support, between

25-to-30 hours of total instruction were typically recommended
(McLean, 1995; National Business Education Association, 1992).
Some authors have argued that in the absence of sufficient practice
opportunities following keyboarding instruction, the skills learned will
disappear after instruction ends (National Business Education Associa-
tion, 1992; Warwood et al., 1985; Wetzel, 1985). Warwood and col-
leagues investigation conducted with 45 Grade Four students supports
this contention. These authors found that even though the students in-
creased their keyboarding speed after receiving keyboarding instruc-
tion, these students subsequently experienced a significant decrease in
their skills at six weeks following instruction.
For personal use only.

As noted by authors such as Hoot (1988) and Koenke (1987), there

has been more opinion than solid research to guide decisions about the
best time to introduce keyboarding, which suggests that rigid instructional
guidelines should not be implemented. A range of grade levels have been
proposed. For some authors, the argument that touch-keyboarding tech-
nique is essential has encompassed keyboarding skill acquisition by
children in the earlier grades (Kisner, 1984; Whitmill, 1973). In con-
trast, Hoot (1988), among others, argued that the wisdom of the plea for
employing touch-keyboarding techniques with younger children is ped-
agogically suspect. Several authors have argued that feasibility is an im-
portant consideration with respect to the best age/grade level at which
instruction should commence. That is, although younger children can
theoretically learn to keyboard, it can take considerably longer for them
to do so, rendering it less practical (McLean, 1995; Nichols, 1995;
Shorter, 2001; Sormunen, 1988). This view is supported to some degree
by Pishas (1993) research, conducted with 88 Grades 3-6 students,
which revealed that the older students tended to develop keyboarding
skills more rapidly than the younger students. Some authors concluded,
in light of the feasibility concern, that the upper elementary level (ages
10-to-12) is the ideal time to provide keyboarding instruction (Erickson,
cited in National Business Education Association, 1992).
Rather than propose a specific age/grade level, some authors recom-
mended that the criterion for determining when to commence key-
boarding instruction should be based on when the students will need to
use a keyboard for the production of written work (Byfield & LaBarre,
1985; Sormunen, 1988). The rationale for this recommendation is that
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 131

the proposed advantages of keyboarding competency and enhanced

motivation is related to having a reason to use keyboarding with oppor-
tunities for ongoing practice closely following instruction (Minkel,
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

2003).
A considerable range of publications, both research-based and gen-
eral discussion in nature, exists with respect to specific techniques for
teaching keyboarding (e.g., McClurg & Kercher, 1989; McLean, 1995;
Reagan, 2000; Wallace, 2000). A detailed review of the keyboarding
instruction literature is beyond the scope of this review.

KEYBOARDING PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS

Rather than attempt to nominate an age at which keyboarding can be

taught, some authors have focused on the performance components un-
For personal use only.

derlying keyboarding competency. This is relevant for therapists work-

ing with students experiencing handwriting difficulties in that therapists
need to be able to determine whether students have the capability to de-
velop an adequate level of keyboarding competency (Preminger et al.,
2004; Rogers & Case-Smith, 2002). A related question is whether the
reasons for students experiencing handwriting difficulties might also
affect their ability to use a keyboard.
Several authors have suggested that keyboarding is easier than writ-
ing by hand, not requiring as precise or complex motor planning skills
(Bergman & McLaughlin, 1988; MacArthur, 1999). Whether or not this
comparison with handwriting is accurate, various authors have argued
that keyboarding is a complex skill with linguistic, cognitive (Cooper,
1983; Gopher & Raij, 1988) and sensory-motor components (Cooper,
1983; Sormunen, 1993) and is not simple to acquire and maintain
(Kisner, 1984; Olinzock, 1998).
Keyboarding and handwriting appear to share several elements
(Preminger et al., 2004). Both are used to produce written language
(Gentner, 1983) by creating motor programs that match specific ortho-
graphic codes (Preminger et al.). A motor-learning process is required
to master these skills. Cooper (1983) proposed that within this process,
individuals rely initially on visual feedback, and as they advance, they
depend more on kinesthetic feedback.
Keyboarding and handwriting also appear to differ (Preminger et al.,
2004). For example, it is easier to define correct keyboarding perfor-
mance; a letter either appears on the page or it does not, and the letter
has a well-defined place and serial order (Gentner, 1983). In contrast,
 132 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

handwritten letters can be more or less well formed, can be made in any
size and position, and are drawn over a period of time. Handwriting re-
quires the matching of a motor program for the formation of a specific
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

allograph, followed by the execution of this program (van Galen, 1991).

Handwriting involves particular spatial organization skills that are
probably not necessary while keyboarding (Preminger et al.).
When using the keyboard, the important correspondence that exists
in handwriting between the visual shape of the letter and the movements
required producing or copying it may be sacrificed (Gopher & Raij,
1988). There are no guiding clues in the text to be typed that hint at the
required positions or movements of the fingers. Handwriting, in con-
trast, entails direct copying of the shape of letters (Gopher & Raij).
Keyboarding incorporates a measure of arbitrariness that deprives the
keyboard user of important information (Gopher & Raij).
For personal use only.

Although keyboarding and handwriting are similar in that they both

include cognitive and motor demands, the precise nature of these de-
mands probably differs. For keyboarding, internalization of the spatial
coordinates of the keyboard and the location of the keys is required, in
addition to knowledge of the movement trajectories of hands and fin-
gers from one key to another (Gopher & Raij, 1988). Keyboarding also
requires simultaneous fine control of the fingers and the production of
highly coordinated rapid movement sequences (Gopher & Raij). Since
the keys must be struck serially, the temporal orchestration of the mus-
cle commands for different fingers in motion toward their targets at the
same time represents complex motor programming (Cooper, 1983;
Gordon, Casabona, & Soechting, 1994). Cooper proposed that although
visual guidance and feedback play a role in skilled as well as in un-
skilled keyboarding, the primary source of sensory feedback in skilled
keyboarding is kinesthetic. As the keyboard user makes the transition
from visual to kinesthetic feedback for executing keystrokes, the visual
modality is freed to take on the role as a backup system for locating un-
familiar keys and for checking the material being copied or the screen
for possible errors (Cooper). It should be noted that Coopers proposed
model of keyboarding is based primarily on copying rather than
compositional tasks.
The research conducted to date to examine keyboarding performance
components has followed two broad directions, that is, the associations
between keyboarding and handwriting, and the underlying performance
components of keyboarding.
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 133

Association Between Keyboarding and Handwriting Elements

No consistent pattern of associations with keyboarding accuracy has

Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

emerged. Kameda and Freeman (2004) found a significant relationship

of moderate magnitude between keyboarding errors and keyboarding
speed, in contrast to the non-meaningful findings of other researchers
(A. C. Green & Freeman, 2003; Rogers & Case-Smith, 2002). A fair, al-
beit non-significant, relationship was found between keyboarding er-
rors and handwriting speed (Kameda & Freeman, 2004; Rogers &
Case-Smith, 2002). Non-significant relationships of negligible magni-
tude were found between keyboarding accuracy and handwriting accu-
racy (Preminger et al., 2004), and keyboarding errors and handwriting
legibility (Rogers & Case-Smith).
A significant relationship, fair-to-moderate in magnitude, was found
between the keyboarding speed and handwriting speed of elementary
For personal use only.

school students in several studies (A. C. Green & Freeman, 2003; Kahn &
Freyd, 1990b; Kameda & Freeman, 2004; Preminger et al., 2004; Rog-
ers & Case-Smith, 2002). The reliability of this finding is supported by
the general similarity in results across the studies in which this associa-
tion was investigated; these studies were conducted in different coun-
tries and languages, and the respective groups of students received
considerably different amounts of keyboarding training. A significant
correlation of fair magnitude was also found between keyboarding
speed and handwriting legibility (Rogers & Case-Smith). No associa-
tions were found between keyboarding speed and handwriting quality
nor the rate of keyboarding speed acquisition and handwriting quality
(Pisha, 1993), presumably similar elements of handwriting. The fact
that keyboarding speed was measured post-keyboarding instruction by
Rogers and Case-Smith whereas Pisha measured it pre-instruction may
explain this discrepancy. Furthermore, Pisha, unlike Rogers and Case-
Smith, used an error-adjusted keyboarding speed measure.
Pishas (1993) study revealed that students who handwrite relatively
quickly have relatively strong pre-keyboarding instruction keyboarding
skills and tend to develop their keyboarding skills at a more rapid rate
than students who handwrite slowly. Finally, students who at least occa-
sionally used a computer for homework demonstrated relatively stron-
ger pre-instruction keyboarding skills and acquired keyboarding skills
more rapidly (Pisha).
Each of the studies from which these keyboarding-handwriting re-
sults were reported included upper-elementary age students, although
Pishas (1993) investigation also included students as young as Grade 3.
 134 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

Both Pishas and Preminger and colleagues (2004) studies included

some students with learning disabilities. Variable levels of psychometric
information were reported across the studies.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

Keyboarding Performance ComponentsResearch Findings

A number of performance components have been found to be associ-

ated with handwriting speed and legibility (Abbott & Berninger, 1993;
Berninger & Rutberg, 1992; Cornhill & Case-Smith, 1996; Tseng &
Chow, 2000; Weintraub & Graham, 2000). In contrast, although a vari-
ety of performance components believed to underlie keyboarding have
been proposed (Benbow, Hanft, & Marsh, 1992), comparatively limited
investigation of these components has been conducted to date (Chwirka
et al., 2002; Cowles et al., 1983; A. C. Green & Freeman, 2003; Kameda &
Freeman, 2004; McClurg & Kercher, 1989; Pisha, 1993; Preminger et
For personal use only.

al., 2004). Chwirka and colleagues investigation, conducted with 66

Grade 2 students, used a different approach from the other studies. The
results of this experiment revealed that students who received key-
boarding instruction demonstrated an improvement in their visual-mo-
tor skills. A summary of the correlations between keyboarding speed
and accuracy and various performance components revealed in the
other six component-related studies is provided in Table 3. All correla-
tions greater than .25 in magnitude have been included, congruent with
Coltons (1974) proposal that correlations between .25 and .50 suggest
a fair relationship. In the table a list of both the assessment tasks used in
the studies, and the performance components claimed by the authors to
be measured by each assessment task, have been included. Note that
some reported correlations are negative as a consequence of the method
used to measure the various performance variables.
The amount of keyboarding instruction received by the students in
the five studies ranged from 2-to-12 hours. Some caution appears war-
ranted, therefore, about the level of keyboarding competency with
which the performance components have been found to be meaning-
fully associated. Future studies will hopefully be able to ensure that the
student have had sufficient opportunity to obtain keyboarding compe-
tency.
The examination of possible differences in keyboarding performance
attributable to ability on dexterity tasks was a secondary objective of
McClurg and Kerchers (1989) study conducted with 49 Grades 3-4 stu-
dents. Of the variables considered (three dexterity measures, age, sex,
keyboarding instruction methods), Pencil Tapping explained the high-
 Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13
For personal use only.

TABLE 3. Correlations Among Keyboarding Components Reported in the Research Literature

Assessment Performance Rate Keyboarding (KB) Speed Handwriting (HW) Speed Accuracy
Task Components Acquiring
Keyboard Non- Accuracy- KB HW Speed HW KB Errors KB % HW
Skills Accuracy Adjusted Alphabet Test Alphabet Accuracy Accuracy
Adjusted Task (B) Task (B)
Pencil Tapping Fine-Motor .51 (4)
Bimanual Alternating Fine-Motor; .44* (5) Pre-
Finger Tapping Bilateral instruction:
.42* (5)
Fine-Motor (A) Fine-Motor 7-8 years
Words: .63*;
Sentences:
.56* (1)
Finger Recognition (B) Finger Isola- .27* (6) .28* (6)
tion;
Tactile
Finger Lifting (C) Finger Isola- .32* (6) .31* (6)
tion; Tactile;
Kinesthetic
Complex Finger Motor Plan- .33* (6)
Opposition (D) ning;
Kinesthetic
Recall Complex Finger Motor Memory; .33* (6)
Opposition (D) Kinesthetic;
Visual Percep-
tion
Alternating Fists (D) Motor Plan- .35* (6)
ning;
Bilateral
Kinaesthetic Acuity (E) Kinesthetic .26 (2) .31 (2); .43* (2)
.31 (3)
Kinaesthetic Memory & Kinesthetic .30 (2) .28 (2) -.53* (3)
Perception (E)
Kinesthesia Test (F) .35 (3) .35 (3)
Pencil Excursion (D) Kinesthetic .30 (3); .30 (2) .41* (2); .32 (2); .40* (2) .30 (2)
.27* (6) .38 (3) .31 (3)
Horizontal Ocular Ocular-motor .55** (6); .34 (2); .52* (3) .26 (2); .36 (2) .25 (3) .33 (3)
Movements (G) .33 (2); .42 (3) .39* (6); .58* (3)
.47 (3) .53* (3)

135
 Phys Occup PTher Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13
N
For personal use only. N

d
d l
tor l i
i
onal h
o
h

Tests C
M C
Test

s
of

ducati TABLE 3 (continued) and

axi ent
and
Assessment Performance E Rate Keyboarding (KB) Speed Handwriting (HW) Speed Accuracy
Task Components Acquiring est
Non- Accuracy- KB HW Speed HW KB Errors KB % HW
f PrKeyboard Accuracy Adjusted Alphabet Test Alphabet Accuracy
ne Accuracy
Skills T

136
Adjusted Task (B) Task (B)
Test ne
Vertical Ocular Ocular-motor o .30* (6); .30 (2); .59* (3) .46* (2); .41* (2); .47 (3) .42 (3)
Movements (G) .50* (3) .35 (3) .57* (3) .56* (3) ci
y
Visual Recognition (D) Visual Memory; ci .30* (6)
Motor Memoryn t
i ovem
Visual-Motor Visual-motor .27* (6)
Integration (H) Integration oand v
Visual Perception (H) Visual Memory i M .38** (6) edi
Left-Right Spatial percep- t edi .33** (6)
Discrimination tion n
on Examiner (D) etsky M
Motor Coordination (H) Visual-motor
o .31* (6) M
coordination
nati
Total Motor Score (A) Motor i 7-8 years:
Sentences:
Eye.54*. Words:
ati .43
5-6 years:
Sensi Strokes: .32
Oser (1)
ental
Gross-Motor (A) Gross Motor 5-6 years
xam c Strokes: .33 ental
Words: .46
E 7-8 years:
ntegr ental .34 (1)
I
c nks-
i opm

y ni opm

* p < .05 **p < .01 atr vel

ui opm
(1) Cowles, Hedley, & Robinson (1983); (2) A.C. Green & Freeman (2003); (3) Kameda & Freeman (2004); (4) McClurg
vel & Kercher (1989); (5) Pisha (1993); (6) Preminger, Weiss, &
Weintraub (2004) e

A. Bruininks, R. H. (1978). Br e
. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
naestheti
B. Berninger, V. W., & Rutberg, J. (1992). Relationship
vel of finger function to beginning writing: Application to diagnosis of writing disabilities. D ,
198-215.
C. Wolff, P. H., Gunnoe, C. E., & Cohen, C. (1983). Associated movements as a measure of developmental age. D , 417-429.
D. Levine, M. (1985). Pedi e . Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
E. Laszlo, J. I., & Bairstow, P. J. (1985). Ki . London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
F. Ayres, A.J. (1989). Sensor . Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychology Services.
G. Richman, J. E., & Garzia, R. P. (1987). D . Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 137

est amount of variance in keyboarding scores. This finding must be

treated with caution because it is not clear why keyboarding perfor-
mance was first measured following three weeks of keyboarding in-
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

struction rather than prior to instruction, no details were provided about

the precise nature of the finger dexterity tasks, and no psychometric in-
formation about the dexterity and keyboarding performance measures
was provided.
In Pishas (1993) study, conducted with 88 students in Grades 3-6
(M = 9.9 years), no psychometric information was provided about the
method for measuring Bimanual Alternating Finger Tapping.
Cowles and colleagues (1983), in their study involving 24 students
aged 5-8 years, investigated the relationship between keyboarding speed
and motor proficiency. It is unclear whether total motor score, was re-
ferring to the combined score of all sub-tests in the Bruininks-Oseretsky
Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) (Bruininks, 1978) or to the fine and
For personal use only.

gross motor skills section of the BOTMP. It is also not clear whether the
BOTMP was conducted before, during, or after the keyboarding pro-
gram.
A. C. Green and Freemans (2003) investigation, conducted with 25
Grade 4 (M = 9.9 years) students, investigated the relationship of kines-
thetic sensitivity to keyboarding speed and accuracy, compared the role
of oculo-motor movements to that of kinesthesia in keyboarding speed
and accuracy, and the association between keyboarding speed and accu-
racy with handwriting speed. No information was provided about the
level of the students keyboarding skills prior to keyboarding instruc-
tion and the performance components were measured following rather
than prior to keyboarding instruction. Kameda and Freemans (2004)
study, conducted with 18 Grades 5-6 (M = 10.9 years) students, broadly
shared the same goals as A. C. Green and Freemans investigation. In
contrast, however: (a) the students keyboarding and handwriting skills
were determined both prior to and following keyboarding instruction;
(b) more keyboarding instruction (M = 12 vs. 5 hours) was provided to
the students; (c) there were some differences in the kinesthesia mea-
sures used; and (d) similar to Preminger and colleagues (2004) Israeli
study, performance components were measured prior to keyboarding
instruction and correlated with keyboarding and handwriting skills fol-
lowing instruction.
The goals of Preminger and colleagues (2004) study, conducted with
63 Grade 5 (M = 10.2 years) students, were to examine the association be-
tween handwriting and keyboarding speed, and to investigate whether
these two tasks shared common underlying performance components. In
 138 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

addition to the results reported in Table 3, a significant correlation

(p < .01) of moderate-to-good magnitude (Colton, 1974) between key-
boarding speed prior to, and following, keyboarding instruction (r = .67)
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

was revealed. Multiple regression analyses, conducted using the statisti-

cally significant correlations, revealed that none of the predictors had a
unique and significant contribution for keyboarding accuracy. For hand-
writing accuracy, Left-Right Discrimination (on Examiner) was the only
variable with a significant contribution (Adjusted R2 = 24.5%). Regard-
ing keyboarding speed, when the students initial keyboarding speed was
not included, the only significant predictor was horizontal ocular move-
ments (Adjusted R2 = 30.2%). When the initial speed was included,
48.3% (Adjusted R2) of the variance was explained, with two predictors,
initial keyboarding speed and horizontal ocular movements. Finally, for
handwriting speed, there was one significant predictor, horizontal ocular
movements, explaining 22.1% (Adjusted R2) of the variance. Some cau-
For personal use only.

tion might be warranted in the interpretation of these regression analyses,

related to sample size requirements (S. B. Green, 1991), the decision to
enter only the significant correlations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), and
the decision to enter the pre- and post-keyboarding speed into the key-
boarding speed regression analysis.
Because A. C. Green and Freemans (2003), Kameda and Freemans
(2004), and Preminger and colleagues (2004) studies investigated the rela-
tionship between various performance components and both keyboarding
and handwriting measures, cautious observation of some general trends
appears warranted (see Table 4). One reason for caution is that several as-
sessment tasks measure more than one performance component, render-
ing it more difficult to discern which performance components are
associated with which aspect of keyboarding and handwriting.
Ocular movements seem to be clearly associated with speed (key-
boarding and handwriting); only in Kameda and Freemans (2004)
study was an association also found with keyboarding accuracy. Some
of the inconsistency across the studies regarding the magnitude of the
associations of ocular movements may be explainable by the differing
nature of the reading demands required by the keyboarding and hand-
writing copying tasks used in the respective studies.
No clear trend regarding the role of kinesthesia in keyboarding has
emerged. These conflicting patterns may indicate that some of the mea-
sures claimed to be evaluating kinesthetic function are not doing so. The
lack of clear trends may also reflect the limited amount of keyboarding
instruction received by the participants, who at the novice level are likely
to rely more heavily on vision rather than kinesthesia (Cooper, 1983).
 Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13
For personal use only.

TABLE 4. Correlation Trends

Trend Performance Component Bivariate Correlations

More related to Recall Complex Finger Opposition (kinesthetic, Keyboarding accuracy: .33* (1) Keyboarding speed: .24 (1)
Keyboarding than motor memory, visual perception)
Handwriting
Kinaesthetic Memory & Perception (kinesthetic) Keyboarding accuracy: .53* (3) Keyboarding speed: .30 (2); .21 (3); Keyboarding
Alphabet Task: .22 (2)
More related to Handwriting Motor Coordination (visual-motor coordination) Handwriting speed: .31* (1) Handwriting accuracy: .24 (1)
than Keyboarding
More related to Speed Finger Recognition (finger isolation, tactile) Keyboarding speed: .27* (1); Handwriting speed: .28* (1)
(Keyboarding & Handwriting)
than Accuracy Visual Perception (visual memory) Keyboarding speed: .24 (1); Handwriting speed: .38** (1)
Complex Finger Opposition (kinesthetic, motor planning) Keyboarding speed: .33* (1); Handwriting speed: .20 (1)
More related to Accuracy Finger Lifting (kinesthetic, finger isolation, tactile) Keyboarding accuracy: .32* (1); Handwriting accuracy: .31* (1)
(Keyboarding & Handwriting)
than Speed
More related to Accuracy Alternating Fists (motor planning, bilateral) Keyboarding accuracy: .35* (1)
(Keyboarding) than Speed
Visual Recognition (visual memory, motor memory) Keyboarding accuracy: .30* (1)
More related to Accuracy Visual-Motor Integration Handwriting accuracy: .27* (1)
(Handwriting) than Speed
Left-Right Discrimination on Examiner (spatial Handwriting accuracy: .33** (1)
perception)

* p < .05 **p < .01

(1) Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub (2004); (2) A.C. Green & Freeman (2003); (3) Kameda & Freeman (2004).

139
 140 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

CONCLUSION

There is an overall dearth of evidence-based research in support of

Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

the many keyboarding-related recommendations that have been ad-

vanced for school students. Notwithstanding these limitations, how-
ever, some clinical conclusions can be drawn.

Clinical Conclusions

1. Keyboarding Speed: Students should be able to keyboard at least

as fast as they can handwrite recognizing, however, that it is nec-
essary to consider the individual situation of students experienc-
ing handwriting difficulties. At this time handwriting speed norms
provide a more trustworthy guide than the keyboarding speed lit-
erature for keyboarding speed targets.
For personal use only.

2. Keyboarding Accuracy: Similar to keyboarding speed, the deci-

sion regarding the necessary level of keyboarding accuracy may
be an individual one.
3. Touch-Keyboarding: The more automatic the process of keyboarding,
the more able students are to focus on the content rather than me-
chanics of written work production. Keyboarding automaticity is
most likely achieved via a touch-keyboarding approach. Success-
ful use of a keyboard by students experiencing handwriting diffi-
culties should not, however, necessarily be defined by the use of
touch-keyboarding.
4. Keyboarding Instruction: General consensus indicates that students
require instruction in order to develop keyboarding competency,
and opportunities for ongoing practice once initial competency has
been acquired. This implies that simply providing students experi-
encing handwriting difficulties with keyboards will not, in most
cases, be sufficient. There is general agreement that students at the
upper elementary level are ready to acquire keyboarding skill in a
reasonable amount of time. General conclusions only are warranted
regarding specific keyboarding instruction guidelines.
5. Predicting Keyboarding Competency: The research concerning
keyboarding performance components has revealed a fair-to-moder-
ate association between handwriting speed and both keyboarding
speed and the rate of keyboarding speed acquisition, and between
keyboarding speed and handwriting legibility. The studies conducted
by A. C. Green and Freeman (2003), Preminger and colleagues
(2004) and Kameda and Freeman (2004) are the most precise at-
tempts to date to further understanding about the specific perfor-
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 141

mance components underlying keyboarding skills in school students,

including the similarities and differences with handwriting that exist.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

Research Directions

1. Determine whether handwriting speed norms can act as appropri-

ate keyboarding speed targets. This goal includes clarification re-
garding how much keyboarding instruction students typically
require to achieve these speeds, and the feasibility of providing
such instruction. Clarification is also required regarding whether
the skill elements respectively associated with keyboarding and
handwriting are such that students are able to attain the same
keyboarding speed that they can with handwriting at the same age.
2. Clarification is required regarding the most efficient method for stu-
dents to achieve keyboarding competency. There appears to be an in-
For personal use only.

creasing need for students to obtain keyboarding skills at the

elementary school level given the increased availability and use of
keyboards. In many educational jurisdictions, however, there are tre-
mendous curricular pressures. Research is required that addresses the
reality that students need to be able to attain keyboarding skills at
handwriting-speed equivalency at the earliest age in the least amount
of time with the least amount of personnel support.
3. Some tentative patterns have been identified within the research
regarding the associations between elements of keyboarding and
handwriting, and the specific performance components underly-
ing keyboarding. The approaches used by A. C. Green and Free-
man (2003), Preminger and colleagues (2004) and Kameda and
Freeman (2004), which evaluated very specific measures of com-
ponents, seem to provide more useful information than a general
measures approach. Pishas (1993) focus on the rate of key-
boarding skill acquisition is also valuable in that it attempted to
address the important issue of keyboarding instruction feasibility.
It may be valuable for future research to meld the approaches used
by these respective researchers.

REFERENCES
Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relation-
ships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary- and intermediate-
grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 478-508.
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New
York: W. H. Freeman and Co.
 142 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

Arnold, V., Joyner, R. L., Schmidt, J., & White, C. D. (1997). Establishing electronic
keyboarding speed and accuracy timed-writing standards for postsecondary students.
Business Education Forum, 51(3), 33-38.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

Behymer, J., & Echternacht, L. (1987, March). Keyboarding instructionA comparison

of second and third grade students. Business Education Forum, 41, 30-32.
Benbow, M., Hanft, B., & Marsh, D. (1992). Handwriting in the classroom: Improving
written communication. In C. B. Royeen (Ed.), Classroom applications for
school-based practice (pp. 1-60). Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy
Association.
Bergman, K. E., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1988). Remediating handwriting difficulties
with learning disabled students: A review. British Columbia Journal of Special
Education, 12, 101-119.
Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working
memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Dis-
ability Quarterly, 22, 99-112.
Berninger, V. W., & Rutberg, J. (1992). Relationship of finger function to beginning
For personal use only.

writing: Application to diagnosis of writing disabilities. Developmental Medicine

and Child Neurology, 34, 198-215.
Britten, R. M. (1988, April). The effects of instruction on keyboarding skills in Grade
2. Educational Technology, 28, 34-37.
Bruininks, R. H. (1978). Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Circle Pines,
MN.: American Guidance Service.
Byfield, J. S., & LaBarre, J. (1985). Integrating information processing into key-
boarding/typewriting. Business Education Forum, 39(8), 53-56.
Chwirka, B., Gurney, B., & Burtner, P. A. (2002). Keyboarding and visual-motor skills
in elementary students: A pilot study. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 16(2/3),
39-51.
Cochran-Smith, M., Kahn, J., & Paris, C. L. (1988). When word processors come into
the classroom. In J. L. Hoot & S. B. Silvern (Eds.), Writing with computers in the
early grades (pp. 43-74). New York: Teachers College Press.
Colton, T. (1974). Statistics in medicine. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Cooper, W. E. (1983). Introduction. In W. E. Cooper (Ed.), Cognitive aspects of skilled
typewriting (pp. 1-38). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cornhill, H., & Case-Smith, J. (1996). Factors that relate to good and poor handwriting.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 732-739.
Cowles, M., Hedley, M., & Robinson, M. (1983). An analysis of young children learning
keyboarding skills (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 238 542). Nash-
ville, TN: Tennessee State University, Center for Training and Technical Assis-
tance.
Crealock, C., & Sitko, M. (1990). Comparison between computer and handwriting
technologies in writing training with learning disabled students. International Journal
of Special Education, 5, 173-183.
Dunn, B., & Reay, D. (1989). Word processing and the keyboard: Comparative effects
of transcription on achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 237-245.
Dybdahl, C. S., & Shaw, D. G. (1989). Issues of interaction: Keyboarding, word process-
ing and composing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21, 380-391.
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 143

Feder, K., Majnemer, A., & Synnes, A. (2000). Handwriting: Current trends in occupa-
tional therapy practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 197-204.
Fouche, G. (1987, April). Learn to keyboard in just ten hours. Business Education Forum,
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

41, 14-15.
Freeman, A. R., MacKinnon, J. R., & Miller, L. T. (2004). Assistive technology and
handwriting problems: What do occupational therapists recommend? Canadian
Journal of Occupational Therapy.
Gentner, D. R. (1983). The acquisition of typewriting skill. Acta Psychologica, 54,
233-248.
Gerlach, G. J. (1987, April). The effect of typing skill on using a word processor for
composition. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association,
Washington, DC.
Gopher, D., & Raij, D. (1988). Typing with a two-hand chord keyboard: Will the
QWERTY become obsolete? IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
18, 601-609.
Gordon, A. M., Casabona, A., & Soechting, J. F. (1994). The learning of novel finger
movement sequences. Journal of Neurophysiology, 72, 1596-1609.
For personal use only.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. C. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally:
Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 414-424.
Graham, S., Weintraub, N., Berninger, V. W., & Schafer, W. (1998). Development of
handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1-9. The Journal of Educational Research,
92, 43-52.
Green, A. C., & Freeman, A. R. (2003). The role of kinaesthetic sensitivity in
keyboarding: Pilot study. Unpublished manuscript, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario.
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499-510.
Groff, P. J. (1961). New speeds of handwriting. Elementary English, 38, 564-565.
Hall, C. S. (1985, October). Keyboarding in a self-contained fourth-fifth grade class-
room. Paper presented at the North Carolina Educational Microcomputer Confer-
ence (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 269 130), Greensboro, NC.
Hamstra-Bletz, L., & Blte, A. W. (1990). Development of handwriting in primary
school: A longitudinal study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 759-770.
Hoot, J. L. (1985, February). Computer keyboarding instruction in the elementary
school: Directions for curriculum design. Paper presented at the Southwest Educa-
tional Research Association, Austin, TX.
Hoot, J. L. (1986). Keyboarding instruction in the early grades: Must or mistake?
Childhood Education, 63, 95-101.
Hoot, J. L. (1988). Keyboarding in the writing process: Concerns and issues. In J. L.
Hoot & S. B. Silvern (Eds.), Writing with computers in the early grades (pp.
181-195). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hunter, W. J., Benedict, G., & Bilan, B. (1989). On a need-to-know basis: Keyboarding
instruction for elementary students. The Writing Notebook, 7(2), 23-25.
Jackson, T. H. (1991, Winter). Building keyboarding skills at the elementary level. The
Balance Sheet, 19-21.
Kahn, J., & Freyd, P. (1990a). Online: A Whole Language perspective on keyboarding.
Language Arts, 67(1), 84-90.
 144 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

Kahn, J., & Freyd, P. (1990b, February). Touch typing for young children: Help or hin-
drance? Educational Technology, 30, 41-45.
Kameda, M. M., & Freeman, A. R. (2004). The role of kinaesthetic sensitivity in
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

keyboarding: A reliable screening component? Unpublished manuscript, Univer-

sity of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
Kercher, L., & McClurg, P. (1985, November). Keyboarding issues in elementary edu-
cation: Some research findings. Paper presented at the National Council of States
on Inservice Education, Denver, CO (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED
289 481).
Kisner, E. (1984, February). KeyboardingA must in tomorrows world. The Computing
Teacher, 11, 21-22.
Klein, S., Erickson, L., Perrott, C., Zacharuk, L., James, K., & Williamson, H. (2003,
May). Computer skills and the child with Developmental Coordination Disorder.
Paper presented at the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists Confer-
ence, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Koenke, K. (1987). Keyboarding: Prelude to composing at the computer. English Edu-
For personal use only.

cation, 19, 244-249.

Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M., & Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word processing
tools for students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase
text entry speed. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 95-108.
MacArthur, C. A. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writing: Computer support for basic
writing skills. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 169-192.
MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with
writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorder, 20(4), 85-100.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1993). Integrating strategy instruction
and word processing into a process approach to writing instruction. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 22, 671-681.
McClurg, P., & Kercher, L. (1989). Keyboarding instruction: A comparison of five
approaches. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 445-458.
McCutchen, D. (1995). Cognitive processes in childrens writing: Developmental and
individual differences. Issues in Education, 1, 123-160.
McLean, G. N. (1995). Teaching keyboarding (3rd ed.). Little Rock, AR: Delta Pi
Epsilon.
Minkel, W. (2003, May). Keys to the future: When should students learn proper
keyboarding skills? School Library Journal, 49, 34-36.
Morrow, J. (1989). The effects of keyboarding instruction on middle school students
composition written using word processing. Unpublished Masters thesis, Boston
University, Boston, MA.
National Business Education Association. (1992). Elementary/middle school keyboarding
strategies guide (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 355 407). Reston, VA:
National Business Education Association.
Nichols, L. M. (1995). A comparison of two methods for teaching keyboarding in the
elementary school. Computers in the Schools, 11(4), 15-25.
Okolo, C. M. (1993). Final report: Cultural differences in the perceptions and use of
computer-assisted instruction among students with learning disabilities (No. Grant
#G008730284). Newark, DE: University of Delaware.
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 145

Okolo, C. M., Hinsey, M., & Yousefian, B. (1990). Learning disabled students acqui-
sition of keyboarding skills and continuing motivation under drill-and-practice and
game conditions. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 100-109.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

Olinzock, A. A. (1998). Computer skill buildingThe answer to keyboarding instruction?

Business Education Forum, 52(3), 24-26.
Penso, D. E. (1990). Keyboard, graphic and handwriting skills: Helping people with
motor disabilities. London: Chapman & Hall.
Penso, D. E. (1999). Keyboarding skills for children with disabilities. London: Whurr.
Phelps, J., Stempel, L., & Speck, G. (1985). The Childrens Handwriting Evaluation
Scale: A new diagnostic tool. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 46-50.
Pisha, B. (1989). Typing for children with learning disabilities: A new solution, or a
new problem. Unpublished Qualifying paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Pisha, B. (1993). Rates of development of keyboarding skills in elementary school aged
children with and without identified learning disabilities. Unpublished Doctoral
thesis, Harvard, Boston, MA.
Preminger, F., Weiss, P. L., & Weintraub, N. (2004). Predicting occupational perfor-
For personal use only.

mance: Handwriting versus keyboarding. American Journal of Occupational Ther-

apy, 58, 193-201.
Priest, N., & May, E. (2001). Laptop computers and children with disabilities: Factors
influencing success. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 48, 11-23.
Prigge, L., & Braathen, S. (1993). Working with elementary students in keyboarding.
Business Education Forum, 48(1), 33-35.
Ray, M. L. (1977). 10 finger exercise: Type and learn. Teacher, 94(7), 45-47.
Reagan, S. D. (2000). Increasing touch-keyboarding skills in the middle school stu-
dent: KeyWords vs. Type to Learn, hand covers vs. no hand covers. Unpub-
lished Masters thesis, Johnson Bible College, Knoxville, TN.
Reed, B. G., & Kanny, E. M. (1993). The use of computers in school system practice by
occupational therapists. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 13(4),
37-55.
Rigby, P., & Schwellnus, H. (1999). Occupational therapy decision making guidelines
for problems in written productivity. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediat-
rics, 19, 5-27.
Rogers, J., & Case-Smith, J. (2002). Relationships between handwriting and
keyboarding performance of sixth-grade students. American Journal of Occupa-
tional Therapy, 56, 34-39.
Russin, I. (1995). A comparison of the effect of teacher-directed instruction (and text-
book use) and interactive computer software instruction on the development of
touch-keyboarding skills in two sixth-grade classes. Unpublished Masters thesis,
Kean College, Union, NJ.
Sassoon, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Wing, A. (1986). An analysis of childrens penholds.
In H. S. R. Kao, G. P. van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contempo-
rary research in handwriting (pp. 93-106). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Schmidt, B. J., & White, C. D. (1989). Electronic keyboarding: Standards for grading
timed writings. Business Education Forum, 44(1), 29-35.
 146 PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS

Seawel, L., Smaldino, S. E., Steele, J. L., & Lewis, J. Y. (1994). A descriptive study
comparing computer-based word processing and handwriting on attitudes and per-
formance of third and fourth grade students involved in a program based on a pro-
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

cess approach to writing. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5, 43-59.

Shorter, L. L. (2001). Keyboarding versus handwriting: Effects on the composition flu-
ency and composition quality of third grade students. Unpublished Doctoral thesis,
University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama.
Sormunen, C. (1988). A comparison of speed achievement of students in grades 3 to 6
who learn keyboarding on the microcomputer. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 30(2),
47-57.
Sormunen, C. (1991). Elementary school keyboarding: A case for skill development.
Business Education Forum, 45(6), 28-30.
Sormunen, C. (1993). Learning style: An analysis of factors affecting keyboarding
achievement of elementary school students. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 35(1),
26-38.
For personal use only.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tseng, M. H., & Chow, S. M. K. (2000). Perceptual-motor function of school-age children
with slow handwriting speed. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 83-88.
van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Move-
ment Science, 10, 165-191.
Wallace, J. B. (2000). The effects of color-coding on keyboarding instruction of third
grade students. Unpublished Masters thesis, Johnson Bible College, Knoxville, TN.
Wallen, M., Bonney, M., & Lennox, L. (1996). The Handwriting Speed Test. Adelaide:
Helios.
Warwood, B., Hartman, V., Hauwiller, J., & Taylor, S. A. (1985). Research study to
determine the effects of early keyboard use upon student development in occupa-
tional keyboarding (No. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 265 367).
Bozeman, MT: Montana State University.
Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (2000). The contribution of gender, orthographic, finger
function, and visual-motor processes to the prediction of handwriting status. Occu-
pational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 121-140.
Wetzel, K. (1985). Keyboarding skills: Elementary, my dear teacher? The Computing
Teacher, 12(9), 15-19.
Whitmill, L. B. (1973). Typewriting: An integral part of the elementary and middle
school curriculum. Business Education Forum, 27(7), 41-42.
Woodward, S., & Swinth, Y. L. (2002). Multisensory approach to handwriting
remediation: Perceptions of school-based occupational therapists. American Jour-
nal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 305-312.
Wronkovich, M. H. (1988, September). The relationship of early keyboarding instruc-
tion to computer proficiency. Educational Technology, 28, 42-47.
Yau, M., Ziegler, S., & Siegel, L. (1990). Lap top computers and the learning disabled
student: A study of the value of portable computers to the writing progress of stu-
 Freeman, MacKinnon, and Miller 147

dents with fine motor problems (No. Report No. 193; ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service ED 320342). Toronto: Research Section, Toronto Board of Education.
Ziviani, J., & Elkins, J. (1984). An evaluation of handwriting performance. Educa-
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University Library SZ 100 on 12/13/13

tional Review, 36, 249-261.

Ziviani, J., & Watson-Will, A. (1998). Writing speed and legibility of 7-14-year-old
school students using modern cursive script. Australian Occupational Therapy
Journal, 45, 59-64.
For personal use only.

To request single copies of articles from Haworth

journals at only $18.00 each, visit the Haworth
website at www.HaworthPress.com today!