View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effect of an Instructional Program for Word Processing and Efficient Typing on 'Year 4 Students' Composition

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effect of an Instructional Program for Word Processing and Efficient Typing on 'Year 4 Students' Composition
Language: English
Authors: Nagham Gahshan, Naomi Weintraub
Source: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2025 38(9):2661-2683.
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: 23
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Descriptors: Elementary School Students, Grade 4, Word Processing, Computer Use, Writing (Composition), Computer Literacy, Language Arts, Keyboarding (Data Entry)
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-024-10613-9
ISSN: 0922-4777
1573-0905
Abstract: Elementary-school students are increasingly required to compose texts on computers. Composing involves both higher-level (planning, translating and revising) and lower-level (i.e., transcription) skills. It is assumed that automatic lower-level skills enable students to focus their attention on the higher composition demands. However, while composing instruction is part of the language arts curriculum, computer literacy instruction (e.g., typing and word processing [WP]) receives less attention. This disparity may affect composition performance, but the evidence for this premise is limited. To address this gap, the Word Processing and Typing Instructional Program (WoTIP) was developed which is grounded in motor learning, ergonomics, and self-regulated learning principles, and incorporated within a language arts curriculum via a collaborative consultation model. The study examined: (a) if the WoTIP will improve students' typing speed, WP, and composition performance compared to a 'no touch-typing or WP instruction' control group; and (b) if improvement in typing and WP will be associated with enhanced composition performance. This study included Grade 4 students (N = 51). Findings showed that the WoTIP group (n = 27) significantly improved their typing and WP performance, as well as their composition quantity and quality, compared to the control group (n = 24). Additionally, a low significant correlation was observed between WP and composition quantity and between typing, WP and composition quality. Hence, it appears that the WoTIP may be an effective program for enhancing both transcription and composing abilities of Grade 4 students.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1492587
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEwK4B2e4CFUrs37oMHG_hUAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGy5KN763q_7iktejAIBEICBmweuMsr_IwSabYy9udXxUYSIvqfxL3JDLCG3-lM3d440XXTb6tuNXoleizt0OTUslQ7bXcwS1-Omgbd1y0AaFpiOoxRySFGRpY3IWk1cV3aS7a--VdhlkU7s12qC5mUQyFwC0pd3MeDUVKRMb9lwuVgTw8ckOaGy9CNG72tz3cWXG6mUlU9CwFdJQzq0USp_6IcJjrBcobPk7BI8
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189054369;2ap01nov.25;2025Nov05.03:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189054369-1">Effect of an Instructional Program for Word Processing and efficient typing on 'Year 4 students' composition </title> <p>Elementary-school students are increasingly required to compose texts on computers. Composing involves both higher-level (planning, translating and revising) and lower-level (i.e., transcription) skills. It is assumed that automatic lower-level skills enable students to focus their attention on the higher composition demands. However, while composing instruction is part of the language arts curriculum, computer literacy instruction (e.g., typing and word processing [WP]) receives less attention. This disparity may affect composition performance, but the evidence for this premise is limited. To address this gap, the Word Processing and Typing Instructional Program (WoTIP) was developed which is grounded in motor learning, ergonomics, and self-regulated learning principles, and incorporated within a language arts curriculum via a collaborative consultation model. The study examined: (a) if the WoTIP will improve students' typing speed, WP, and composition performance compared to a 'no touch-typing or WP instruction' control group; and (b) if improvement in typing and WP will be associated with enhanced composition performance. This study included Grade 4 students (N = 51). Findings showed that the WoTIP group (n = 27) significantly improved their typing and WP performance, as well as their composition quantity and quality, compared to the control group (n = 24). Additionally, a low significant correlation was observed between WP and composition quantity and between typing, WP and composition quality. Hence, it appears that the WoTIP may be an effective program for enhancing both transcription and composing abilities of Grade 4 students.</p> <p>Keywords: Keyboarding; Word processing; Motor learning; Collaborative consultation; Composition; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Composing texts serves as a means of self-expression in both work and school assignments (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]). The process of composing is intricate (Malpique & Veiga-Simão, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref2">36</reflink>]; Penner-Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]), requiring both higher- and lower-cognitive skills (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref4">37</reflink>]). Consequently, throughout the school years, students are systematically taught how to compose texts as a fundamental component of the language arts curriculum (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]; Malpique & Simão, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref6">35</reflink>]). Moreover, with the increasing use of computers in education, students frequently utilize word processors (via typing) for composing, due to the many advantages they offer (Foxworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>The underlying premise is that for students to focus on the higher-cognitive demands of composing, lower-cognitive skills must be automatic (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>]). However, in many countries, unlike composition, word processing (WP) and typing (keyboarding) are not systematically and explicitly taught in schools (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>]; Poole & Preciado, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref10">43</reflink>]). This raises the questions of whether the lack of instruction of WP and typing increases students' attentional effort on these basic skills, thereby taxing their composition performance (e.g., quality and quantity; Alves et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>]; van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref12">53</reflink>]), and conversely, does systematic instruction in these skills improve composition performance? Yet, data on this issue is limited (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]), creating a gap in knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-3">Higher and lower cognitive functions of composing</hd> <p>Over the years, various writing models have been presented (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>]; Hayes & Flower, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref16">27</reflink>]) that share two main assertions. First, that the writing process requires both higher- (e.g., planning, translating, and revising; Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]; Hayes & Flower, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]) and lower-cognitive skills. The latter includes transcription (e.g., spelling, handwriting, typing), in which internal language representations are transformed into visible, external language (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]). The second assertion is that the process of translating ideas into written language requires the use of working memory, which has a limited capacity (Medwell & Wray, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>]). Hence, for writers to be able to compose efficiently, without overloading their working memory, they need to attain automaticity in the lower cognitive writing skills (Medwell & Wray, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]). This frees their working memory to the higher-level demands of the writing process, enabling them to produce longer and higher-quality compositions (Barkaoui, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>]; Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]; Gong et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-4">Relationship between word processing, typing, and composition</hd> <p>As stated above, composing on computers has become common in elementary-schools. This practice is supported by evidence showing that the use of word processors may facilitate legible texts (Morphy & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]), idea generation, and revision of texts (MacArthur, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>]; Morphy & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref28">40</reflink>]). However, the effectiveness of word processing (WP) while composing is associated with typing automaticity - fluent and rapid typing with minimal conscious effort (Rieger & Bart, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>]). Moreover, typing speed and automaticity were found to be associated with composition performance in both elementary- (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]) and middle-school students (Gong et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]); faster and automatic typists produced higher-quality and longer compositions. These findings support the premise that lower-order writing skills (i.e., typing, WP) are associated with better composition proficiency. However, proficiency in typing and WP may require explicit and systematic instruction (Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]; MacArthur, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]; Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>The common use of computers from an early age raises the question among educators and researchers of whether it is necessary and effective to teach students basic computer skills such as typing and WP. Interestingly, unlike composition, which is regularly taught in elementary school (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>]; Poole & Preciado, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref36">43</reflink>]), despite their importance and recommendations (e.g., Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSS], 2016), WP and touch-typing are often not systematically taught (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]; Poole & Preciado, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref38">43</reflink>]). For example, a survey by Poole and Preciado ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]) among California teachers found that they recognized the importance of teaching touch-typing in elementary-schools, but did not teach this skill, citing lack of specified time in the curriculum as a main constraint. Similar findings were reported by Dockrell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]) who surveyed teachers in England. In Israel touch-typing is recommended by Grade 3 but is not compulsory and is rarely implemented (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, accumulating evidence shows that systematic instruction in typing and WP can improve these skills (Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]; Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref43">56</reflink>]) and enhance students' composition performance (van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref44">53</reflink>]). For example, several studies demonstrated the effectiveness of 3- to 7-months touch-typing programs for typically developing elementary school students (e.g., Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]; van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref46">53</reflink>]). These programs were administered during weekly computer lab sessions and were compared to a control group. Students in the touch-typing programs significantly increased their typing speed compared to controls, who did not receive any touch-typing instruction (van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref47">53</reflink>]) and were not engaged in informal typing activities (e.g., games or informal practice; Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>]). Additionally, a study among higher education students with and without learning disorders showed that following touch-typing instruction, students' typing speed (but not accuracy) significantly improved (Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref49">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other studies examined the effect of touch-typing and/or WP instruction on students' composition performance. Christensen's (2004) pioneering research was a substantial milestone in examining the effect of touch-typing acquisition on composition. Students in Grade 8 were divided into two groups. The experimental group underwent an 8-week typing instruction program, in which students practiced typing letters, words, and short sentences. The control group completed a written journal using WP. Results showed that although both groups improved, the experimental group demonstrated significantly better composition quantity and overall quality. Similarly, van Weerdenburg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>]) compared 4-6th-grade students' writing to a control group, who did not receive any typing instructions. After controlling for pretest scores, at posttest, the instruction group wrote longer and higher-quality compositions. Conflicting results were found by Daniels ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref51">10</reflink>]), who administered a 10-week typing instruction program to students in Grades 4–5. This group was compared to an instruction-as-usual control group, measuring their quantity and quality of compositions. At posttest, both groups' typing speed and composition quality were similar. Yet in this study, the instruction did not include WP.</p> <p>These studies are promising, but the data on the effectiveness of typing and WP instruction, particularly in improving composition performance, remains limited. Most studies did not combine typing and WP instruction (Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>]; Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref53">10</reflink>]; Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref55">13</reflink>]; Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref56">55</reflink>]) which support each other. Furthermore, these studies often did not integrate typing and WP instruction into the language arts curriculum which could provide contextual and ecological value. Finally, studies have shown an association between typing performance and reading speed (Gahshan-Haddad & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref57">21</reflink>]; Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref58">37</reflink>]) which was not controlled for in previous studies.</p> <p>The limitations of the studies reviewed above led to the development of the Word Processing and Typing Instructional Program (WoTIP) as an integral part of a language arts curriculum for Grade 4 students. It is a theory-driven program, based on the principles of ergonomics, motor-learning, and self-regulated learning, and is anchored in the Collaborative Consultation model (for further elaboration, see Procedure section).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-5">Study aims</hd> <p>This study aimed to address the limited evidence on the effectiveness of typing and WP instruction, specifically in improving composition. The overarching goal was to evaluate the efficacy of a combined typing and WP instruction program for Grade 4 students, which was integrated into a language arts curriculum. The study addressed two questions: (a) Will the WoTIP improve Grade 4 students' typing speed, WP skills, and composition quality and quantity compared to a control group who did not learn touch-typing or WP; and (b) will improvement in typing and WP be associated with improvement in composition performance. We hypothesized that both groups would improve (due to students' practice and development during the school year), but that the WoTIP group would show greater improvement. Furthermore, improvement in typing and WP would be correlated with enhanced composition performance.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189054369-7">Study design and participants</hd> <p>This study followed a pre-post-long-term case-control design (Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]), with random assignment of two public elementary schools from central Israel to an instructional group and a control group. The schools included students from an average socioeconomic status based on the Ministry of Education's "Nurturing Index"[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]. The exclusion criteria of the study were: (a) Students whose parents or they did not consent to participate in the study, (b) were receiving special education services, and (c) scored at the 10th percentile or lower on the Coloured Progressive Matrices test (CPM; Raven et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref61">46</reflink>]). Together, the two schools had 151 Grade 4 students, of whom 80 (52.6%) parents consented and the students assented to participate. Of those, 19 did not meet the study's criteria, and 10 were absent during the pretest or long-term data collection. The final sample consisted of 51 Grade 4 students between the ages 9 to10 years old (<emph>M</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 9.60, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.35).</p> <p>The sample size was determined using G-power (Faul et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>]), based on a previous study (van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref63">53</reflink>]) that examined a touch-typing program's effectiveness for Grade 4 students on typing speed and composition length. Results showed an effect size (Cohen's d) of 0.80 based on independent t-test (one-tailed) both for typing and for composition length. Using this effect size, an <emph>α</emph> < 0.05, and a desired power of 0.80, a sample of 21 students per group (<emph>N</emph> = 42) was required for the present study. However, since this was an ecological-based study, we included all students who met the study's criteria, and thus, the sample was somewhat larger.</p> <p>The WoTIP group encompassed two classrooms (25 and 26 students in each). However, only 27 (54%) of the students from both classrooms had permission to participate in the study, met the study's criteria, and attended all instructional lessons and data collection sessions. Of the 27 students, 63% were females and 37% were males. The control group included three classrooms, each consisting between 31 and 35 (100 in all) students of whom 24 (24%) met the study's criteria; 15 (62.5%) were females and 9 (37.5%) were males. All students reported that they did not previously learn to touch-type. The language arts teachers in each of the schools and classrooms were graduates of a teachers' college and had over 10 years of experience.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-8">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189054369-9">Background questionnaire</hd> <p>This questionnaire was developed for this study and is a self-report that addressed students' age, gender, health information (e.g., vision and hearing status), and touch-typing formal acquisition.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-10">Raven's coloured progressive matrices (CPM; Raven et al., 1998)</hd> <p>The CPM evaluated nonverbal general intelligence in children between the ages of 5 to 11 years (Raven et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref64">46</reflink>]). It is divided into three parts, each containing 12 designs increasing in complexity, with a part missing (36 diagrams overall). The examinee is asked to choose the part that will complete each design (Raven, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref65">45</reflink>]). Raw scores are transformed into percentile scores. The CPM has been found to have high internal consistency (<emph>α</emph> = 0.80–0.94; Valencia, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref66">52</reflink>]) as well as high test-retest reliability (<emph>r</emph> =.82, <emph>p</emph> <.01; Raven et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref67">46</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-11">Aleph-taph (Shany et al., 2006)</hd> <p>This is a norm-referenced test for elementary-school students, that assessed reading, verbal memory, and linguistic skills in Hebrew. We administered the reading-aloud text test. The test was scored for the number of words the students read per minute (reading speed). The Aleph-Taph has high internal consistency (<emph>α</emph> = 0.88) and reflects developmental trends of reading ability (i.e., a significant increase in reading speed from Grade 1–6).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-12">The hebrew keyboarding assessment for elementary school students (H-KBAT; Weintraub et al., 2...</hd> <p>The typing tasks in this study were based on the H-KBAT which was developed to assess typing performance of Grades 4–6 students, and includes three typing tasks: A 5-minute copy-typing (a paragraph) task from a paper-to-computer, a 3-minute typing-to-dictation task, and a 5-minute composition task, each scored for speed and accuracy (for psychometric properties see Khoury-Shaheen & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref68">30</reflink>]). In the current study, two of the tasks were used - the copying and the composition – which were extended to 10 min, to allow for a more substantial amount of text, and to write long enough compositions that can enable a more meaningful quality evaluation. Students performed the H-KBAT on a laptop with a QWERTY keyboard with Hebrew letters, using the Microsoft 356<sups>®</sups> Word application, with the spell-checker function turned off. Based on the H-KBAT instructions, the copying task was scored for speed (mean number of characters typed per minute) and accuracy (percent of correct keys typed).</p> <p>As in the original composition task, students were instructed to choose one of three argumentative genre topics: (a) "Your school proposed to cancel homework. Write a letter to the principal expressing your opinion on the subject"; (b) "You are running for school council. Write a letter to the school newspaper outlining the changes you plan to implement if elected, detailing how you will execute these initiatives."; and (c) "Your school proposed to require wearing a school uniform. Write a letter to the principal expressing your opinion on the subject". Compositions' quantity was established as defined in the original task; number of characters (including punctuation marks) typed. However, the H-KBAT does not include a composition quality score. Therefore, we developed a qualitative scoring scale based on the Israeli Ministry of Education's composition indicators (n.d.) and the National Institute for Testing and Evaluation guidelines for evaluating written compositions (Sopher et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref69">50</reflink>]). It focused on three indices (for elaboration see Table 1): Content (3 scales), Structure (1 scale), and Language (5 scales). Each scale was scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1–4). The total score of the composition assessment ranged from 9 to 36. Additionally, each index was scored separately. Compositions' quality was rated by an external assessor who had expertise in language arts and was not part of the study's team. For establishing inter-rater reliability, overall, 10 of the compositions were also rated by the first author. For the scoring and reliability purposes, compositions were counter-balanced both with respect to the testing period (pretest, posttest or long-term) and group affiliation. The composition quality task was found to have high inter-rater reliability (<emph>ICC</emph> = 0.98; 95% <emph>CI</emph> = 0.88-0.99), and medium-high internal consistency for the total score (<emph>α</emph> = 0.86), as well as the Content (<emph>α</emph> = 0.70) and Language (<emph>α</emph> = 0.82) indices. However, it should be noted that the number of compositions in the inter-rater reliability is relatively small, and thus, these ratings should be treated with cautions.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-13">Word processing assessment for elementary-school students (WoPA-E; Gahshan-Haddad & Weint...</hd> <p>The WoPA-E was developed for this study based on a computer literacy curriculum for each grade level, including word processing, created by the Primary Education Division of the Ministry of Education in Israel ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1 The qualitative indices for analyzing the typed compositions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Indices</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of scales</p></th><th align="left"><p>Content of each index</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Content</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>a. Affinity to task and conceptual axis</p><p>b. Conceptual development</p><p>c. Focus and cohesion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Structure</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Opening sentence, pro and con arguments (examples), and</p><p>summary sentence</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Language</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>a. Language clarity and adequacy with argumentative genre</p><p>b. Vocabulary</p><p>c. The structure and variety of sentences</p><p>d. Connectivity and use of organizational means</p><p>e. Grammar and punctuation</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>This curriculum is based on the International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA) International Study of Computer and Information Literacy (ICILS; Fraillon et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref71">20</reflink>]). The WoPA-E, includes 25 word-processing commands that students are expected to master at the end of Grade 4. These commands are divided into two components: (a) Document management (9 commands; e.g., opening and closing a document or folder, minimizing or saving a document), and (b) Editing (16 commands; e.g., changing font size or language, cutting or copying commands).</p> <p>Students were asked to open a pre-typed Word document, edit it according to instructions, and save it. The examiner observed and recorded students' performance (0 = not able to perform the command; 1 = able to perform). The total score of the WoPA-E ranges from 0 to 25. Additionally, each section is scored separately: Document management (0–9) and Editing (0–16). The WoPA-E was found to have high content validity based on experts' judgments (Newman et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref72">41</reflink>]), and medium-high internal consistency for the total score (<emph>α</emph> = 0.88), and the Document management (<emph>α</emph> = 0.72) and Editing (<emph>α</emph> = 0.83) sections.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-14">Procedure</hd> <p>The ethics review board of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem , the Israeli Ministry of Education, and the school principals of the two elementary schools approved the study. Next, the Grade 4 language arts teachers sent parents a letter describing the study's purpose and procedure, and requesting their consent and their children's assent to participate. In the WoTIP school, all students participated because the program was part of the language arts classes, but data from students without parental consent or their own assent were excluded. In the control group, students whose parents did not consent were not tested. The study followed five phases: (a) Training the instructors, (b) Pretesting (for both groups), (c) Application of the instructional program (WoTIP), (d) Posttesting (only for the WoTIP group), and (e) Long-term testing (for both groups).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-15">Training</hd> <p>The 10-hour training program for language arts teachers and occupational therapists (OT) was provided by the developers of the WoTIP (authors). First, the trainees were presented with the WoTIP rationale and protocol. Congruent with the collaborative consultation principles, at this stage the teachers and occupational therapists were invited to comment both on the content and the suggested lesson plans, resulting in revision of the protocol. Next, they were trained in implementing the WoTIP protocol, and the use of the "Sense-Lang" touch-typing program (Sense-Lang, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref73">49</reflink>]; see below for elaboration).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-16">Pretesting</hd> <p>In this phase, both groups were administered the test battery during the second month of the school year (October). Testing was carried out by three occupational therapists (including the first author), who had over 5 years of experience in school-based occupational therapy, were trained in administering the test-battery, and were not involved in WoTIP administration. Assessments took place during two sessions, starting with small groups (5 students), who filled out the Background Questionnaire and were administered the H-KBAT (30 min), including writing a composition of their choice on one of the three topics outlined above. In the second session, students were individually administered the CPM, the Aleph-Taph and the WoPA-E (45 min).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-17">The WoTIP and the control programs</hd> <p>As suggested by the Israeli Ministry of Education ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref74">29</reflink>]), Language arts instruction in Grade 4 is commonly taught 4 days a week. The focus of instruction in both schools was to learn to write composition following the argumentative genre. <emph>In the WoTIP group</emph>, during the months of November through February, of the four language arts classes, two were devoted to the WoTIP classes. As stated above, the <emph>Word Processing and Typing Instructional Program (WoTIP)</emph> is a theory-driven program, grounded in ergonomics, motor-learning, and self-regulated learning principles, and followed the Collaborative Consultation model.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Ergonomics</emph> </bold>. While using computers, students tend to remain in a static posture, which has been identified as one of the most important risk factors for work-related neck and upper limb disorders (Yang & Cho, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref75">61</reflink>]). Therefore, students were taught how to utilize correct posture and hand positioning while typing on computers as well as proper seating (Donne, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref76">14</reflink>]; Fošnarič & Drnovšek, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref77">18</reflink>]), to prevent fatigue and prolonged muscles and joints loading (Briggs et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]; Yang & Cho, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref79">61</reflink>]).</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Motor-Learning</emph> </bold>. Based on motor learning principles, typing instruction followed three phases (Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref80">12</reflink>]; Stevenson & Just, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref81">51</reflink>]). The first is the Cognitive phase, teaching finger-key associations while navigating the keyboard (Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref82">55</reflink>]) and relying on visual feedback. In the Associative phase, students internalized this knowledge, gradually relying more on kinesthetic feedback. Through practice, the first two stages were expected to lead to the third stage, Automaticity, where students allocate minimal cognitive effort to typing, relying less on visual cues from the keyboard and more on internal kinesthetic feedback (Logan et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref83">33</reflink>]).</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Self-regulated learning (SRL)</emph> </bold>. The SRL principles were incorporated following Winne and Hadwin's model (2008) to encourage students to implement metacognitive strategies for better understanding and controlling their own learning environment (Ranalli, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]). This model includes four stages: (a) Task definition, (b) Goal setting and planning, (c) Performing the task, and (d) Monitoring and drawing conclusions for future performance (Winne & Hadwin, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref85">59</reflink>]; for elaboration see Section WoTIP framework and content).</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Collaborative Consultation Model (CC)</emph> </bold>. A key innovation of the WoTIP is its integration into language arts classes. This was achievable through collaboration between occupational therapists, who were experts in technology use to support learning, including typing and WP, and language arts teachers who specialize in teaching writing. The CC model encourages teamwork to achieve a common goal (Hanft & Swinth, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref86">25</reflink>]) - enhancing students' composition skills - and consequently, their academic achievements.</p> <p>Hence, during the WoTIP implementation, the teachers and occupational therapists taught together as equal partners (Hanft & Swinth, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref87">25</reflink>]). They met weekly to review the lessons, draw conclusions, and plan upcoming lessons. They also planned how students would incorporate the typing and word processing during the composition lessons.</p> <p>The WoTIP consisted of 27 bi-weekly lessons, 45 min each, and included five topics (for elaboration see Appendix A). Each lesson started with a reminder of the ergonomic principles. The content of the WP instruction was based on the Ministry of Education's primary education division guidelines for computer literacy for Grade 4 students (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref88">39</reflink>]). Touch-typing was taught using the "Sense-Lang" program (Sense-Lang, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref89">49</reflink>]), which is a free online touch-typing program. In each lesson students learn two-letters or punctuation marks per lesson, and practice through games. The program also provides simultaneous typing results, including speed (words typed per minute) and accuracy. After the first four units (completion of the home row keys), to support the transition from visual to kinesthetic (internal) feedback while typing, students were provided with keyboard covers. The last five lessons focused on applying the acquired skills while writing compositions and performing other typed assignments. Additionally, students were asked to write their composition homework assignments, given in the language arts classes, using WP.</p> <p>Congruent with motor-learning principles, students were instructed to type as accurately as possible and to focus their gaze on the screen, while monitoring for errors, assuming that speed would increase due to practice (Wolpert et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref90">60</reflink>]). They were also directed to progress from one unit to the other only if they reached an accuracy rate of at least 90% or above in the unit. Additionally, following the SRL principles, before each lesson, students were asked to set up to three specific goals for the lesson (e.g., "I will try and sit straight while typing", "I will type slower and focus on accuracy"). After the lesson, the students self-evaluated their ability to meet their goals.</p> <p>The <emph>control</emph> group also had four language arts lessons per week, following the same language arts curriculum as the WoTIP group (i.e., composing). But they did not receive any computer literacy lessons (as confirmed by the principals and teachers), including touch-typing or WP instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-18">Posttesting</hd> <p>Due to technical problems with the control group (unexpected field trips, and assemblies) at the termination of the program (the end of February), only the WoTIP group was available for testing. First, they copied the same text as they did in the pretest followed by typing a composition on a topic which they did not write about at pretest, due to the time proximity between the pre- and posttesting.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-19">Long-term testing</hd> <p>Long-term testing took place approximately 3 months following the end of the program (May-June) in the same manner as in the pretest and posttest. Students were administered the WoPA-E and the H-KBAT, including typing a composition on the same topic as they wrote at the pretest, to control for topic effect.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-20">Data analysis</hd> <p>Analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 26; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographic features, central tendency, and variability of measures. Statistical significance was set at <emph>p</emph> <.05. One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess normality. Results showed that all measures were normally distributed. First, Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationship between reading and typing speed. Additionally, Independent sample t-test was used to examine the differences between the two groups in reading speed. These analyses were conducted to establish if reading speed was a possible confounding variable. Next, difference scores (Δδ = long-term - pretest) were calculated for typing speed, WP total score and composition quantity and quality. One-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the effect of the instructional program on the WoTIP group in typing, WP, and composition performance over three-time measurements (pretest, posttest, and long-term). Next, two-way mixed ANOVAs were performed to examine the WoTIP's effect on typing and composition quantity and quality over two-time measurements (pretest to long-term). The within subjects' effect was time (pretest-long-term) and the between-subject effect was group (WoTIP vs. Control). Post hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment was used for multiple comparisons both within and between the two groups (the adjusted p-value were provided). Partial Eta squared (<emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs>) effect size interpretations were based on Cohen's (1988) interpretations (cited in Lenhard & Lenhard, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref91">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-21">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189054369-22">Reading speed as a possible confounding variable</hd> <p>With the purpose of examining if reading speed was a possible confounding variable in explaining the variance in typing speed, first, we performed Pearson correlations. We found a significant positive correlation between these variables (<emph>r</emph> =.47, <emph>p</emph> <.001). However, in comparing the two study groups with respect to reading speed no significant differences were found (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref92">49</reflink>) = 1.78; <emph>p</emph> =.08). Consequently, we did not control for reading in the subsequent analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-23">The effect of the WoTIP on typing performance</hd> <p>First, we examined the means and standard deviations of typing accuracy and speed (see Table 2). As can be seen, students' accuracy was very high with relatively low variance. Therefore, further analyses were performed only on typing speed. Next, we examined the effect of the instructional program on the WoTIP group's typing speed at the three-time measurements (pretest, posttest, and long-term). Repeated measure analysis (<emph>n</emph> = 25; two students were absent from the posttest assessment) showed a significant large time effect, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref93">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref94">48</reflink>)</subs> = 88.58, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.79. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that typing speed significantly increased from pre- to posttest and to long-term (<emph>p</emph> <.001), as well as from posttest to long-term (<emph>p</emph> <.001).</p> <p>When examining the effect of the WoTIP on the typing speed of both groups at the long-term, a significant large time effect was found, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref96">49</reflink>)</subs> = 137.38, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.74. Results also showed that there was a significant time X group interaction, <emph>F</emph><subs>(1.49)</subs> = 20.35, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.29, with a large effect size. When examining each group separately over the two-time measurements, we found that both groups significantly increased their typing speed from pretest to long-term, <emph>p</emph> <.001. However, the WoTIP's group improvement in typing speed was greater than the controls (Table 2), even though pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction showed that the WoTIP group had significantly lower scores at pre-test (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref98">49</reflink>)</subs> = 5.12, <emph>p</emph> =.028, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.095). It is also interesting to note that at the long-term evaluation, the WoTIP group almost doubled their speed compared to pretest.</p> <p>Considering that the Document management and the File editing components together comprised the total WoPA-E score, we will report the findings only for the WoPA-E total score. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2. In examining the effect of the WoTIP on the WP total score, the two-way mixed ANOVA showed a significant large time effect, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref100">49</reflink>)</subs> = 162,46, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.77, indicating that the WP total score significantly.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-24">The effect of the WoTIP on word processing skills</hd> <p>increased from pretest to long-term. There was also a significant time X group interaction, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref102">49</reflink>)</subs> = 101.87, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups><bold><emph>2</emph></bold></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.68, with a large effect size. Post-hoc analysis with Bonferroni adjustment revealed a significant improvement from pretest to long-term for the WoTIP group <emph>(p</emph> <.001) but not for the control (<emph>p</emph> =.074).</p> <p>Table 2 Means and standard deviations of students' typing performance and Word Processing (N = 51)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>WoTIP group</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 27)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Control Group</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 24)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Pretest</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Typing</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Speed<sup>a</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.75</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Accuracy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>95.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>93.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.07</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WP<sup>b</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.79</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Posttest</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Speed<sup>a</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>40.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.03</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Accuracy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>95.87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.80</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Long-term</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Speed<sup>a</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51.26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>44.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.48</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Accuracy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>96.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.45</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>95.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.46</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>WP<sup>b</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22.93</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.23</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.75</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>a</sups>Character per minute. <sups>b</sups>Word processing total score</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-25">The effect of the WoTIP on the composition quantity</hd> <p>In examining the effect of the WoTIP on composition quantity, repeated measure analysis showed a significant large time effect (see Table 3 for descriptive statistics), <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref103">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref104">50</reflink>)</subs> = 7.59, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.23. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that the composition quantity significantly increased from pretest to posttest (<emph>p</emph> =.025), and from pretest to long-term (<emph>p</emph> =.007) but not from posttest to long-term (<emph>p</emph> = 1.00). When examining the effect of the WoTIP on the composition quantity of both groups at long-term, results showed that there was a significant time X group interaction (see Fig. 1), <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref106">49</reflink>)</subs> = 7.38, <emph>p</emph> =.009, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.13, with a medium effect size. When examining each group separately over the two-time measurements, there was a significant improvement from pretest to long-term only for the WoTIP group <emph>(p</emph> <.001), even though no significant differences between the groups at pretest were observed <emph>(F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref107">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref108">49</reflink>)</subs>, <emph>p</emph> =.07, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.067).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-26">The effect of the WoTIP on the composition quality</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189054369-27">Total score</hd> <p>First, we examined the effect of the WoTIP on the <emph>Total score</emph> of the composition quality (see Table 3 for descriptive statistics), in the three points of time. Similar to quantity, we found a statistically significant large time effect, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref109">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref110">50</reflink>)</subs> = 7.41, <emph>p</emph> =.002, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.23. As can be seen, there was a consistent increase in Total quality score from pretest to long-term, but post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that the improvement was statistically significant only from pretest to long-term (<emph>p</emph> =.002). When examining the effect of the WoTIP on the total score of the composition quality of both groups at long-term, results showed that the time X group interaction was not statistically significant, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref112">49</reflink>)</subs> = 4.05, <emph>p</emph> =.05, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.07 (also see Fig. 2). Yet, when examining each group separately over the two-time measurements, there was a significant improvement from pretest to long-term only for the WoTIP group <emph>(p</emph> <.001), even though there was no significant difference between the groups at pretest <emph>(F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref114">49</reflink>)</subs> = 0.766, <emph>p</emph> >.39, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.015).</p> <p>Table 3 Means and standard deviations of students' composition quantity and quality (<emph>N</emph> = 51)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Composition</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>WoTIP Group</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 27)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Control Group</p><p>(<italic>n</italic> = 24)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Quantity</bold><sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Pretest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>262.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>135.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>346.54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>184.18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Posttest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>343.42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>137.49</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Long-term</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>366.96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>156.26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>333.96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>84.43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Quality</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold> Total score</bold><sup><bold>b</bold></sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Pretest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.88</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Posttest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.69</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Long-term</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23.59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.86</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Content</bold><sup><bold>c</bold></sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Pretest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.75</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Posttest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.79</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Long-term</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.65</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Structure</bold><sup><bold>d</bold></sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Pretest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.53</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.56</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Posttest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Long-term</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.40</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Language</bold><sup><bold>e</bold></sup></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Pretest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.69</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Posttest</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.06</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Long-term</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.71</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> Higher means represent better quantity and quality; <sups>a</sups>Chracters typed in 10 min. <sups>b</sups>Score range 9–36. <sups>c</sups>Score range 3–12. <sups>d</sups>Score range 1–4. <sups>e</sups>Score range 5–20</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Time and group interaction for composition quantity</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Time and group interaction for composition quality total score. Note Composition quality total score range (9–36)</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-28">Composition content</hd> <p>A more detailed examination of the composition quality components (see Table 3 for descriptive statistics) showed that in the Content index, within the WoTIP group there was a significant large time effect, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref115">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref116">50</reflink>)</subs> = 7.32, <emph>p</emph> =.002, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.22. Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment showed that the improvement from pretest to posttest was not significant (<emph>p</emph> = 1.00). In contrast, a significant improvement between pretest and long-term (<emph>p</emph> =.014) and between posttest to long-term <emph>(p</emph> =.008) were observed. Further analysis showed that when examining the WoTIP effect on the compositions Content of both groups, there was no significant interaction between time X group, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref118">49</reflink>)</subs> = 3.32, <emph>p</emph> =.075, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.06. However, when examining each group separately over the two-time measurements, there was a significant improvement from pretest to long-term only for the WoTIP group <emph>(p</emph> =.004).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-29">Composition structure</hd> <p>Within the WoTIP group, we found a significant large time effect, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref119">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref120">50</reflink>)</subs> = 13.12, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.34 for the Structure index (see Table 3 for descriptives). Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment showed a significant improvement from pretest to posttest (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and from pretest to long-term (<emph>p</emph> <.001) but not from posttest to long-term <emph>(p</emph> = 1.00). Additionally, there was a significant time X group interaction, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref121">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref122">49</reflink>)</subs> = 18.35, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.27, with a large effect size. When examining each group separately over the two-time measurements a significant improvement from pretest to long-term was found only for the WoTIP group <emph>(p</emph> <.001).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-30">Language</hd> <p>Within the WoTIP group, results showed a significant medium time effect, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref124">50</reflink>)</subs> = 3.67, <emph>p</emph> =.033, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.12 for the Language index (see Table 3 for descriptives). Post-hoc analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment showed a significant improvement only from pretest to long-term (<emph>p</emph> =.039) but not for the other periods (<emph>p</emph> = 1.00). In contrast, no significant time X group interaction was found, <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref125">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref126">49</reflink>)</subs> = 1.69, <emph>p</emph> =.199, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><subs><emph>p</emph></subs> = 0.03. Yet, when examining each group separately over the two-time measurements, a significant improvement from pretest to long-term was found only in the WoTIP group <emph>(p</emph> =.019).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-31">Correlation between improvement in typing and word processing and composition performance</hd> <p>The second study objective was to examine if improvement in typing and WP scores (differences between long-term and pretest) was associated with improvement in composition quantity and quality. Results for the entire sample showed a significant low correlation between improvement in typing speed and improvement in composition quality (<emph>r</emph> =.30, <emph>p</emph> =.03), but not in quantity. The findings also showed a significant low correlation between improvement in WP and improvement in both composition quantity (<emph>r</emph> =.38, <emph>p</emph> =.004) and quantity (<emph>r</emph> =.29, <emph>p</emph> =.04). However, in examining these associations with respect to the WoTIP group itself, no significant correlations were observed between typing speed, WP and composition performance.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-32">Discussion</hd> <p>There is accumulating evidence indicating that fast typing and efficient word processing are associated with better composition quantity and quality (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref127">37</reflink>]). Therefore, one would expect that schools would allocate time to typing and word processing instruction to improve students' automaticity and efficiency in these skills. Yet in many countries, this is still not common practice (Feit et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref128">16</reflink>]; Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref129">37</reflink>]; Poole & Preciado, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref130">43</reflink>]), and the evidence supporting the efficacy of instructional programs in improving typing and word processing is scanty (Foxworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref131">19</reflink>]). Additionally, there is limited knowledge regarding the impact of improving typing and word processing skills on composition performance. To address this gap, this study aimed to examine the effect of the Word Processing and Typing Instructional Program (WoTIP) on students' composition quantity and quality.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-33">Improvement in typing and word processing</hd> <p>The results showed that both groups significantly improved their typing speed from pretest to long-term assessment, as expected. However, the WoTIP group outperformed the control group. This improvement was significant even after accounting for students' reading speed, which was similarly associated with typing speed in both groups (Malpique et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref132">37</reflink>]; Gahshan-Haddad & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref133">21</reflink>]). These results align with previous studies (Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref134">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref135">13</reflink>]; Foxworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref136">19</reflink>]; van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref137">53</reflink>]; Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref138">55</reflink>]) reporting significant improvements in students' typing speed following a typing instruction program. These findings highlight that touch-typing instruction can effectively enhance elementary-school students' typing performance beyond their natural development, as observed in the control group.</p> <p>The results also demonstrated a significant time-group interaction for word processing, with further analysis revealing a significant improvement from pretest to long-term for the WoTIP group, but not for the control group. Studies examining the effectiveness of word processing instruction are scarce (Foxworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref139">19</reflink>]; Morphy & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref140">40</reflink>]), thus limiting the ability to contextualize this study's results within the existing body of research. Although these findings are promising, further research on this topic is warranted.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-34">Improvement in composition performance</hd> <p>This study also found that following the WoTIP instruction, there was an improvement in the composition quantity, unlike the control group. In fact, by the long-term assessment, the WoTIP group outperformed the control group. From an educational point of view, calculating approximately five letters per word, students in the WoTIP group increased their written quantity by approximately 39%, from 52.5 to 73.3 words per 10 min. In contrast, the control group's composition quantity slightly decreased over the same time period.</p> <p>However, longer texts alone are not sufficient without adequate quality. This study also showed that the composition quality of the WoTIP group improved compared to the control group. Further analysis revealed that the enhanced total quality score in the WoTIP group resulted from their improvement in Content, Structure and Language. These findings are congruent with the few previous studies showing the positive impact of typing instructional programs on students' composition length and quality (Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref141">7</reflink>]; van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref142">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>The control group's lack of improvement in composition performance following composing classes, may suggest that complementing composition instruction with teaching typing and word processing skills may help students enhance the lower cognitive functions required for composing. This enables them to focus more on the higher cognitive demands such as planning and expressing their ideas (van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref143">53</reflink>]), resulting in longer and higher quality texts. This premise aligns with the simple view of writing model (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref144">4</reflink>]) which asserts that writing automaticity frees working-memory, allowing writers to focus on the higher cognitive writing demands (Feng et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref145">17</reflink>]). This premise may also be supported by the fact that in the WoTIP group significant improvement was observed only from pretest to long-term, but not at posttest. Perhaps, at the end of the program (posttest), students continued to allocate much of their attention to typing and word processing, suggesting that they were still in the associative stage of acquisition. However, once these skills improved (by long-term testing), students could focus more on the higher-cognitive functions needed for composition (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref146">10</reflink>]; Wen & Walters, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref147">58</reflink>]), resulting in enhanced compositions' quantity and quality.</p> <p>The assertion that the typing and word processing instruction contributed to the enhancement in students' composition performance is further grounded in the significant correlations noted between these skills for the entire sample. However, this finding should be treated with caution because the correlations were not significant when examining this association solely within the WoTIP group. Therefore, further studies are necessary to substantiate this premise.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-35">Possible mechanisms of change</hd> <p>In reflecting upon the WoTIP group's improvement in composition performance, perhaps the fact that the WoTIP is theoretically driven contributed to its success. First, WoTIP followed motor learning principles which may have enhanced students' typing skills (Barkaoui, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref148">2</reflink>]; Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref149">12</reflink>]), enabling them to progress from the cognitive to the associative stage toward automaticity. While they may have not fully reached automaticity by the end of the program, because automaticity requires much practice (Logan et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref150">33</reflink>]), their continued improvement from posttest and long-terms assessments suggests ongoing progress. This progress may have been supported by self-regulated meta-cognitive learning principle, including students' goal setting, planning, and monitoring (self-evaluating), which helped them internalize the touch-typing principles and enhance transfer to different contexts (Zimmerman & Tsikalas, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref151">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, combining word processing and typing instruction may have supported students' composition skills by enabling effective use of word processing functions while revising (MacArthur, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref152">34</reflink>]; van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref153">53</reflink>]). This proposition is supported by the results of the control group, which only received composition instruction, and may have had to focus more on the lower cognitive demands of composing (i.e., WP and typing; van Weerdenburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref154">53</reflink>]). Additionally, integrating WoTIP in language arts classes allowed students to apply the new skills they acquired in meaningful activities and contexts (Indrayadi et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref155">28</reflink>]). Finally, collaboration between occupational therapists and teachers, each bringing unique expertise, may have contributed to achieving the WoTIP's educational goals (Selanikyo et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref156">48</reflink>]; Villeneuve & Shulha, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref157">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-36">Limitations, strengths and suggestions for further studies</hd> <p>Although the WoTIP showed promising results, several limitations exist. First, the study was based on a small sample and only on Grade 4 students. Future studies should include larger samples and different grade-levels. Second, lacking posttest results for the control group limits the ability to follow the acquisition process and progress of this group. Third, although this study's design, which involved randomly allocating students to study groups by schools rather than individually, is commonly applied in educational research which examines the efficacy of ecological instructional programs, it should be noted that it may have introduced a nesting effect due to the potential dependence of students within each school.</p> <p>An additional design limitation is that the control group did not receive alternative typing or word processing instruction. Therefore, while the WoTIP may be effective, it can only be concluded that students may benefit from systematic typing and WP instruction. Hence, future large-scale studies should aim at directly assessing and controlling for teachers' practices (i.e., multi-level modelling and multitiered interventions). Furthermore, it is unclear which of the WoTIP's components contributed the improvement. Future studies should compare the WoTIP to an alternative typing program to better understand its effectiveness and advantages. Additionally, at the long-term assessment period, students wrote on the same topic as at pre-test. Hence, despite a 6-month gap between tests, this may have created a learning effect. Finally, one of this study's underlying assumptions was that automatizing students' transcription skills would enhance their ability to focus on higher-cognitive skills of composing. However, typing automaticity was not directly evaluated. Future studies would benefit from testing this aspect.</p> <p>Although it is important to bear in mind these limitations while considering the effectiveness of the WoTIP, this study's strengths should not be overlooked. First, the WoTIP was theoretically driven, followed a structured protocol, and integrated the different factors mentioned above. Second, the embedment of the WoTIP in the language arts curriculum may have increased its ecological validity, mirroring real-life educational settings. Therefore, further research is necessary to further establish the effectiveness of the WoTIP.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-37">Conclusions and educational implication</hd> <p>The findings of this study reinforce the assertion that explicit and systematic typing and word processing (transcription skills) instruction may enhance students' composition performance, thus supporting writing models (e.g., Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref158">3</reflink>]; Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref159">26</reflink>]). From an educational point of view, it appears that the WoTIP may have potential to support computer-based text composing, and to be integrated in language arts curriculum of Grade 4 students. This may be applied through a collaborative consultation model, especially given the constraints (time and knowledge) that teachers report in teaching computer-based writing (Poole & Preciado, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref160">43</reflink>]). Nevertheless, as one of the first studies examining this issue, further experimental and larger-scale studies are needed to establish this program's feasibility and effectiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-38">Appendix A</hd> <p>The WoTIP Instruction topics, number of lessons, and examples</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Instruction Topics</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number</p><p>of lessons</p></th><th align="left"><p>Examples</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Ergonomics</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Correct body and hand posture</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Computer desktop and mouse functions</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Familiarity with common desktop applications, e.g., 'My computer', 'PowerPoint'</p><p>Basic functional keys on the keyboard (e.g., 'Enter', 'Backspace').</p><p>Uses of the mouse</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word Processing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Saving a file</p><p>Changing font size, color</p><p>Spacing</p><p>Cut, copy, and paste</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Touch typing</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Practice within the language arts lessons</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>How to apply the WoTIP while writing compositions</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189054369-39">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank the schools' principals, teachers, and students for their time and cooperation in collecting the data and for participating in the program. We also thank the teachers and occupational therapists for their effort in administering the instructional program. Finally, we are grateful to the SenseLang team for their constant support while administering the program.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-40">Author contributions</hd> <p>Both authors contributed to the study conception, design, development of the instructional program, data analysis and writing. Data collection was performed by Nagham Gahshan.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-41">Funding</hd> <p>This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.</p> <p>Open access funding provided by Hebrew University of Jerusalem.</p> <hd id="AN0189054369-42">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0189054369-43"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref11" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alves RA, Limpo T, Fidalgo R, Carvalhais L, Pereira LÁ, Castro SL. The impact of promoting transcription on early text production: Effects on bursts and pauses, levels of written language, and writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016; 108; 5: 665-679. 10.1037/edu0000089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref23" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barkaoui K. Examining the impact of L2 proficiency and keyboarding skills on scores on TOEFL-iBT writing tasks. Language Testing. 2014; 31; 2: 241-259. 10.1177/0265532213509810</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Jones, Whitaker D, Sylvester L, Nolen SB. Integrating low- and high-level skills in instructional protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly. 1995; 18: 293-309. 10.2307/1511235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Vaughan K, Abbott R, Begay K, Byrd K, Curtin G, Minnich J, Graham S. Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2002; 94: 291-304. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger V, Abbott R, Augsburger A, Garcia N. Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities affecting transcription. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2009; 32: 123-141. 10.2307/27740364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref78" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Briggs A, Straker L, Greig A. Upper quadrant postural changes of school children in response to interaction with different information technologies. Ergonomics. 2004; 47; 7: 790-819. 10.1080/00140130410001663569</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Christensen CA. Relationship between orthographic–motor integration and compute use for the production of creative and well-structured written text. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 74: 551-564. 10.1348/0007099042376373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref59" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clark, T, Foster, L, Bryman, A, & Sloan, L. (2021). Bryman's social research methods. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS) (2016). Common core state standards from English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved January 31, 2017, from <ulink href="http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA%5fStandards1.pdf">http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA%5fStandards1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, S. (2020). Understanding students' typing skills: Evaluating the effects and efficiency of a typing intervention for elementary school students [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee]. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/6797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dockrell JE, Marshall CR, Wyse D. Teachers' reported practices for teaching writing in England. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2016; 29: 409-434. 10.1007/s11145-015-9605-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donica DK, Giroux P, Faust A. Keyboarding instruction: Comparison of techniques for improved keyboarding skills in elementary students. Journal of Occupational Therapy Schools & Early Intervention. 2018; 11; 4: 396-410. 10.1080/19411243.2018.1512067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donica DK, Giroux P, Kim Y. Effectiveness of Two Keyboarding Instructional Approaches on the Keyboarding Speed, Accuracy, and technique of Elementary Students. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2019; 7; 4: 1-15. 10.15453/2168-6408.1599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donne V. Keyboarding instruction for students with a disability. The Cleaning House. 2012; 85: 201-206. 10.1080/00098655.2012.689784</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39; 2: 175-191. 10.3758/BF03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feit, A. M, Weir, D, & Oulasvirta, A. (2016, May). How we type: Movement strategies and performance in everyday typing. In Proceedings of the 2016 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 4262–4273). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feng L, Lindner A, Ji XR, Joshi M. The roles of handwriting and keyboarding in writing: A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2019; 32: 33-63. 10.1007/s11145-017-9749-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fošnarič S, Drnovšek U. Ergonomic aspects of implementing computer technology into schools. Informatologia. 2009; 42; 2: 118-125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foxworth LL, Hashey A, Sukhram PS. Writing in the digital age: An investigation of digital writing proficiency among students with and without LD. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2019; 35; 5: 445-457. 10.1080/10573569.2019.1579011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraillon, J, Ainley, J, Schulz, W, Friedman, T, & Duckworth, D. (2020). Preparing for life in a digital world: IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 international report (p. 297). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38781-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gahshan-Haddad, N, & Weintraub, N. (2023). Underlying functions associated with keyboarding performance of elementary-school students. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1–9 https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2023.2188254 open access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gahshan-Haddad, N, & Weintraub, N. (2020). Word processing assessment for elelmentary-school students (WoPA-E). Hebrew University of Jerusalem, School of Occupational Therapy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gong T, Zhang M, Li C. Association of keyboarding fluency and writing performance in online-delivered assessment. Assessing Writing. 2022; 51: 100575. 10.1016/j.asw.2021.100575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Capizzi A, Harris KR, Hebert M, Morphy P. Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2014; 27: 015-1042. 10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanft BE, Swinth Y. Commentary on collaboration. Journal of Occupational Therapy Schools and Early Intervention. 2011; 4: 2-7. 10.1080/19411243.2011.585057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes JR. Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication. 2012; 29; 3: 369-388. 10.1177/0741088312451260</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, J, & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of the writing process. In L. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 3–30). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Indrayadi, T, Yandri, H, & Kamil, D. (2020). The effect of contextual teaching and learning on reading comprehension. Indonesian Research Journal in Education| IRJE|, 569–583. https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v4i2.9017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Israeli Ministry of Education (n.d.). Composition teaching and evaluation for fourth-grade students. https://edu.gov.il/special/Curriculum/Elementary-school/Fourth-grade/hebrew/Pages/Teaching-materials.aspx</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khoury-Shaheen R, Weintraub N. Keyboarding assessments for elementary school students: Can they be uniform?. Computers and Education Open. 2022; 3: 1-8. 10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100091</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YSG, Gatlin B, Otaiba A, Wanzek J. Theorization and an empirical investigation of the component-based and developmental text writing fluency construct. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2018; 51; 4: 320-335. 10.1177/0022219417712016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenhard, W, & Lenhard, A. (2016). Calculation of Effect Sizes. Psyhometrica, Bibergau (Germany). <ulink href="http://www.psychometrica.de/effect%5fsize.htlm">http://www.psychometrica.de/effect%5fsize.htlm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan GD, Ulrich JE, Lindsey DR. Different (key) strokes for different folks: How standard and nonstandard typists balance Fitts' law and Hick's law. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2016; 42; 12: 2084-2102. 10.1037/xhp0000272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacArthur CA. Reflections on research on writing and technology for struggling writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2009; 24; 2: 93-103. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00283.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malpique AA, Simão AV. Does it work?' Adapting evidence-based practices to teach argumentative writing. Journal of Writing Research. 2019; 10; 3: 527-567. 10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.05</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malpique A, Veiga-Simão AM. Argumentative writing by junior high school students: Discourse knowledge and writing performance/Escritura argumentativa en alumnos de secundaria: Conocimiento sobre El Discurso Y rendimiento en la escritura. Journal for the Study of Education and Development. 2016; 39; 1: 150-186. 10.1080/02103702.2015.1111609</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malpique AA, Valcan D, Pino-Pasternak D, Ledger S, Asil M, Teo T. The keys of keyboard-based writing: Student and classroom-level predictors of keyboard-based writing in early primary. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2023; 75: 102227. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medwell J, Wray D. Handwriting automaticity: The search for performance thresholds. Language and Education. 2014; 28; 1: 34-51. 10.1080/09500782.2013.763819</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education, & Israel (2017). Acquisition of ICILS and their use in language objectives by grade. Primary Education Division. http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/https://meyda.education.gov.il/files/Yesodi/ivrit/meyomanot.pdfUnits/Yesodi/ChinuchLeshony.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morphy P, Graham S. Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2012; 25: 641-678. 10.1007/s11145-010-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman I, Lim J, Pineda F. Content validity using a mixed methods approach: Its application and development through the use of a table of specifications methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2013; 7; 3: 243-260. 10.1177/1558689813476922</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penner-Williams J, Smith TE, Gartin BC. Written language expression: Assessment instruments and teacher tools. Assessment for Effective Intervention. 2009; 34; 3: 162-169. 10.1177/1534508408318805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole DM, Preciado MK. Touch typing instruction: Elementary teachers' beliefs and practices. Computers & Education. 2016; 102: 1-14. 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ranalli R. Inaccurate metacognitive monitoring and its effects on metacognitive control and task outcomes in self-regulated L2 learning. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. 2018; 21; 4: 1-25</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raven J. The raven's progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology. 2000; 41; 1: 1-48. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raven, J. C, Styles, I, & Raven, M. A. (1998). Raven's Coloured Progressive matrices: CPM plus test booklet. The Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rieger M, Bart VK. Typing style and the use of different sources of information during typing: An investigation using self-reports. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016; 7: 1-12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selanikyo E, Weintraub N, Yalon-Chamovitz S. Effectiveness of the Co-PID for students with moderate intellectual disability. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2018; 72: 7202205090. 10.5014/ajot.2018.024109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sense-Lang, O. R. G. (2001). https://sense-lang.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sopher, G, Pompian, S, & Gafni, N. (2013). The development of the written evaluation of the verbal chapter. The National Institute for Testing and Evaluation (NITE). https://<ulink href="http://www.nite.org.il/research-and-publications/academic-and-other-publications/">www.nite.org.il/research-and-publications/academic-and-other-publications/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson N, Just C. In early education, why teach handwriting before keyboarding?. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2014; 42: 49-56. 10.1007/s10643-012-0565-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valencia RR. Reliability of the raven coloured progressive matrices for anglo and for Mexican-American children. Psychology in the Schools. 1984; 21; 1: 49-52. 10.1002/1520-6807(198401)21:1%3C49:AID-PITS2310210109%3E3.0.CO;2-H</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Weerdenburg M, Tesselhof M, van der Meijden H. Touch-typing for better spelling and narrative‐writing skills on the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2018; 35; 1: 143-152. 10.1111/jcal.12323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villeneuve AM, Shulha ML. Learning together for effective collaboration in school-based occupational therapy practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2012; 79; 5: 293-302. 10.2182/CJOT.2012.79.5.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weigelt-Marom H, Weintraub N. The effect of a touch-typing program on keyboarding skills of higher education students with and without learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2015; 47: 208-217. 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.09.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weigelt-Marom H, Weintraub N. Keyboarding versus handwriting speed of higher education students with and without learning disabilities: Does touch-typing assist in narrowing the gap?. Computers & Education. 2018; 117: 132-140. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weintraub, N, Blum, A, Brandes, S, Zada, O, Rib, T, & Traub-Bar-Ilan, R. (2019). The Hebrew Keyboarding Assessment for Elementary School Students (H-KBAT). Hebrew University of Jerusalem, School of Occupational Therapy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wen X, Walters SM. The impact of technology on students' writing performances in elementary classrooms: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education Open. 2022; 3: 100082. 10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winne, P. H, & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning (pp. 297–314). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolpert D, Diedrichsen J, Flanagan J. Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2011; 12: 739-751. 10.1038/nrn3112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang JF, Cho CY. Comparison of posture and muscle control pattern between male and female computer users with musculoskeletal symptoms. Applied Ergonomics. 2012; 43: 785-791. 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.11.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J, & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? In R. Azevedo (Ed.). Computers as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning (pp. 267–271), Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189054369-44"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The Ministry of Education's nurturing index is calculated for each school and is based on the parents' education (40%) family income per capita (20%), the school location (i.e., socio-economic level of the city; 20%) and percentage of immigrants (20%). (https://pob.education.gov.il/institutions/care-metrics/(.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nagham Gahshan and Naomi Weintraub</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref157"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1492587
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effect of an Instructional Program for Word Processing and Efficient Typing on 'Year 4 Students' Composition
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nagham+Gahshan%22">Nagham Gahshan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Naomi+Weintraub%22">Naomi Weintraub</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 38(9):2661-2683.
– 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: 23
– 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="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Processing%22">Word Processing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Use%22">Computer Use</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Literacy%22">Computer Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Arts%22">Language Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Keyboarding+%28Data+Entry%29%22">Keyboarding (Data Entry)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11145-024-10613-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Elementary-school students are increasingly required to compose texts on computers. Composing involves both higher-level (planning, translating and revising) and lower-level (i.e., transcription) skills. It is assumed that automatic lower-level skills enable students to focus their attention on the higher composition demands. However, while composing instruction is part of the language arts curriculum, computer literacy instruction (e.g., typing and word processing [WP]) receives less attention. This disparity may affect composition performance, but the evidence for this premise is limited. To address this gap, the Word Processing and Typing Instructional Program (WoTIP) was developed which is grounded in motor learning, ergonomics, and self-regulated learning principles, and incorporated within a language arts curriculum via a collaborative consultation model. The study examined: (a) if the WoTIP will improve students' typing speed, WP, and composition performance compared to a 'no touch-typing or WP instruction' control group; and (b) if improvement in typing and WP will be associated with enhanced composition performance. This study included Grade 4 students (N = 51). Findings showed that the WoTIP group (n = 27) significantly improved their typing and WP performance, as well as their composition quantity and quality, compared to the control group (n = 24). Additionally, a low significant correlation was observed between WP and composition quantity and between typing, WP and composition quality. Hence, it appears that the WoTIP may be an effective program for enhancing both transcription and composing abilities of Grade 4 students.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1492587
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1492587
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-024-10613-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 2661
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Word Processing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Use
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Keyboarding (Data Entry)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effect of an Instructional Program for Word Processing and Efficient Typing on 'Year 4 Students' Composition
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nagham Gahshan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Naomi Weintraub
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0922-4777
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0905
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1