当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Writing Research › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Effects of transcription ability and transcription mode on translation: Evidence from written compositions, language bursts and pauses when students in grades 4 to 9, with and without persisting dyslexia or dysgraphia, compose by pen or by keyboard
Journal of Writing Research Pub Date : 2017-06-01 , DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.01
Scott F Beers 1 , Terry Mickail 2 , Robert Abbott 2 , Virginia Berninger 3
Affiliation  

This study explored the effects of transcription on translation products and processes of adolescent students in grades 4 to 9 with and without persisting specific language disabilities in written language (SLDs—WL). To operationalize transcription ability (handwriting and spelling) and transcription mode (by pen on digital tablet or by standard US keyboard), diagnostic groups contrasting in patterns of transcription ability were compared while composing autobiographical (personal) narratives by handwriting or by keyboarding: Typically developing students (n=15), students with dyslexia (impaired word reading and spelling, n=20), and students with dysgraphia (impaired handwriting, n=19). They were compared on seven outcomes: total words composed, total composing time, words per minute, percent of spelling errors, average length of pauses, average number of pauses per minute, and average length of language bursts. They were also compared on automaticity of transcription modes—writing the alphabet from memory by handwriting or keyboarding (they could look at keys). Mixed ANOVAs yielded main effects for diagnostic group on percent of spelling errors,, words per minute, and length of language burst. Main effects for transcription modes were found for automaticity of writing modes, total words composed, words per minute, and length of language bursts; there were no significant interactions. Regardless of mode, the dyslexia group had more spelling errors, showed a slower rate of composing, and produced shorter language bursts than the typical group. The total number of words, total time composing, words composed per minute, and pauses per minute were greater for keyboarding than handwriting, but length of language bursts was greater for handwriting. Implications of these results for conceptual models of composing and educational assessment practices are discussed.

中文翻译:

转录能力和转录模式对翻译的影响:来自 4 至 9 年级学生(无论是否患有持续性阅读障碍或书写困难)的书面作文、语言爆发和停顿的证据

本研究探讨了转录对 4 至 9 年级青少年学生的翻译产品和过程的影响,这些学生有或没有持续存在特定的书面语言障碍 (SLD-WL)。为了操作转录能力(手写和拼写)和转录模式(通过数字平板电脑上的笔或通过标准美国键盘),在通过手写或通过键盘撰写自传(个人)叙述时对转录能力模式进行对比的诊断组进行了比较:学生(n = 15),患有阅读障碍的学生(单词阅读和拼写障碍,n = 20)和患有书写困难的学生(书写障碍,n = 19)。他们对七个结果进行了比较:写作总单词数、总写作时间、每分钟单词数、拼写错误百分比、平均停顿长度、平均每分钟停顿次数和平均语言突发长度。他们还对转录模式的自动化进行了比较——通过手写或键盘输入记忆中的字母表(他们可以看按键)。混合方差分析对诊断组的拼写错误百分比、每分钟单词数和语言爆发长度产生了主要影响。转录模式的主要影响包括写作模式的自动化、总单词数、每分钟单词数和语言爆发的长度;没有显着的相互作用。无论哪种模式,阅读障碍组的拼写错误更多,写作速度更慢,语言爆发时间也比典型组更短。键盘的总字数、总写作时间、每分钟写作的字数和每分钟的停顿时间都大于手写,但手写的语言爆发长度更大。讨论了这些结果对作曲概念模型和教育评估实践的影响。
更新日期:2017-06-01
down
wechat
bug