View in EDS

Will Differences in Keyboarding Method of Writing Systems Impact Reading Literacy Performance: Insights from Analyzing Constructive Response Items in Digital PIRLS 2021

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Will Differences in Keyboarding Method of Writing Systems Impact Reading Literacy Performance: Insights from Analyzing Constructive Response Items in Digital PIRLS 2021
Language: English
Authors: Choo Mui Cheong (ORCID 0000-0001-9590-7681), Chung Pui Tai, Ken Chow (ORCID 0000-0002-7039-7897), Run Mu (ORCID 0000-0003-3078-5825), Jiahuan Zhang (ORCID 0000-0002-3111-943X), Wai Ip Lam (ORCID 0000-0002-9179-9000)
Source: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 2025 37(3):331-355.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Descriptors: Keyboarding (Data Entry), Computer Uses in Education, Item Response Theory, Educational Technology, Word Processing, Reading Achievement, Foreign Countries, Achievement Tests, Reading Tests, Grade 4, International Assessment
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
DOI: 10.1007/s11092-025-09458-9
ISSN: 1874-8597
Abstract: The use of more digital devices in learning has motivated the transition from paper-based to computer-based formats in large-scale international assessments, with typewriting as the prevalent input method in such educational studies. However, there remains limited exploration on whether differences arising from varied encoding systems in keyboarding methods impact on students' literacy performance. The current study, utilizing Item Response Theory, aims to investigate whether the use of different keyboarding methods has an effect on students' reading performance based on the 2021 digital Progress of International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), with a particular focus on the constructive response items. The participating countries were divided into three groups based on the consistency between their test language's writing system and its representations on the keyboard--with Group 1 having the highest consistency and Group 3 (Chinese is the only language in this group) the lowest. Results revealed that a significant keyboard effect exists for students with higher-than-average reading ability. Specifically, Group 3 scored lower than Groups 1 and 2, while Groups 1 and 2 did not exhibit significant differences in their reading performance. This suggests that for students with similar higher-than-average reading ability, typing in Chinese appears to be at a disadvantage compared to other input methods. This study emphasizes the importance of considering keyboard effects when designing and scoring future large-scale assessments in order to improve the overall validity of the tests.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1490586
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1490586
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Will Differences in Keyboarding Method of Writing Systems Impact Reading Literacy Performance: Insights from Analyzing Constructive Response Items in Digital PIRLS 2021
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Choo+Mui+Cheong%22">Choo Mui Cheong</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9590-7681">0000-0001-9590-7681</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chung+Pui+Tai%22">Chung Pui Tai</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ken+Chow%22">Ken Chow</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7039-7897">0000-0002-7039-7897</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Run+Mu%22">Run Mu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3078-5825">0000-0003-3078-5825</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jiahuan+Zhang%22">Jiahuan Zhang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3111-943X">0000-0002-3111-943X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wai+Ip+Lam%22">Wai Ip Lam</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9179-9000">0000-0002-9179-9000</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Assessment%2C+Evaluation+and+Accountability%22"><i>Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability</i></searchLink>. 2025 37(3):331-355.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Keyboarding+%28Data+Entry%29%22">Keyboarding (Data Entry)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Uses+in+Education%22">Computer Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Item+Response+Theory%22">Item Response Theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Processing%22">Word Processing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Tests%22">Achievement Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Tests%22">Reading Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22International+Assessment%22">International Assessment</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Progress+in+International+Reading+Literacy+Study%22">Progress in International Reading Literacy Study</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11092-025-09458-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1874-8597
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The use of more digital devices in learning has motivated the transition from paper-based to computer-based formats in large-scale international assessments, with typewriting as the prevalent input method in such educational studies. However, there remains limited exploration on whether differences arising from varied encoding systems in keyboarding methods impact on students' literacy performance. The current study, utilizing Item Response Theory, aims to investigate whether the use of different keyboarding methods has an effect on students' reading performance based on the 2021 digital Progress of International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), with a particular focus on the constructive response items. The participating countries were divided into three groups based on the consistency between their test language's writing system and its representations on the keyboard--with Group 1 having the highest consistency and Group 3 (Chinese is the only language in this group) the lowest. Results revealed that a significant keyboard effect exists for students with higher-than-average reading ability. Specifically, Group 3 scored lower than Groups 1 and 2, while Groups 1 and 2 did not exhibit significant differences in their reading performance. This suggests that for students with similar higher-than-average reading ability, typing in Chinese appears to be at a disadvantage compared to other input methods. This study emphasizes the importance of considering keyboard effects when designing and scoring future large-scale assessments in order to improve the overall validity of the tests.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1490586
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1490586
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11092-025-09458-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 331
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Keyboarding (Data Entry)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Item Response Theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Word Processing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: International Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Will Differences in Keyboarding Method of Writing Systems Impact Reading Literacy Performance: Insights from Analyzing Constructive Response Items in Digital PIRLS 2021
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Choo Mui Cheong
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chung Pui Tai
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ken Chow
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Run Mu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jiahuan Zhang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wai Ip Lam
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1874-8597
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
              Type: main
ResultId 1