Abstract
The present study investigated cognitive effort of handwriting and typing of undergraduate students. In Experiment 1, we used a secondary reaction time task to assess the cognitive effort required by undergraduates when carrying out handwriting and typing copying tasks. Students had longer reaction times, indicating greater cognitive effort, when typing than when handwriting. In experiments 2a and 2b, we investigated whether the additional cost of typing affected an ongoing activity. Participants performed a short-term memory task that required them to type or write by hand words to recall. As Experiment 1 suggested that typewriting was more effortful than handwriting, so it should leave fewer resources to devote to memorizing words, which would result in a better handwritten than typed recall. Overall, handwriting led to better recall than typing, particularly with the longest lists of words. This implies that, even in undergraduates, typing is still more effortful than handwriting and therefore has a negative impact on performance on an ongoing activity. The educational implications of the findings are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All students also performed the Alphabet Task initially designed to assess handwriting automaticity in children (Berninger & Rutberg, 1992). The students carried out this task both by handwriting and by typing. Mean typing scores (M = 31, SD = 6.2) were significantly higher than handwriting scores (M = 22; SD = 4.2, t(29) = − 9.12, p < .001). In addition, the typing scores at the alphabet task did not correlate significantly with cognitive effort of copying (r = − .18, p = .35). Because, to our knowledge, no other published data informs on the typed alphabet task in adults, it is therefore difficult to claim, based on the scores at the typed alphabet task, that typing is more automated than handwriting in undergraduate students. We rather suggest that these higher scores presumably do not capture typing automatization in adults, but rather the well-known higher speed of typing.
References
Alves, R. A., Branco, M., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2011). Children of high transcription skill compose using bigger language bursts. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 389–402). London: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805312.
Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., De Sousa, L., & Strömqvist, S. (2007). Influence of typing skill on pause-execution cycles in written composition. In M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: research and applications (pp. 54–65). New York: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849508223_005.
Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology., 43, 969–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701398951.
Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in written language bursts, pauses, transcription, and written composition across schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(5), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1059838.
Aragón-Mendizábal, E., Delgado-Casas, C., Navarro-Guzmán, J.-I., Menacho-Jiménez, I., & Romero-Oliva, M.-F. (2016). A Comparative study of handwriting and computer typing in note-taking by university students. Comunicar, 24(48), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.3916/C48-2016-10.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A Meta-Analysis of Word Processing in Writing Instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001069.
Beers, S. F., Mickail, T., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. W. (2017). 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, 9(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.01.
Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W., Tanimoto, S., Thompson, R., & Abbott, R. D. (2015). Computer instruction in handwriting, spelling, and composing for students with specific learning disabilities in grades 4–9. Computers & Education, 81, 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.005.
Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing, 4(3), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027151.
Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29(5), 591–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599408248175.
Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (2000). Is graphic activity cognitively costly? A developmental approach. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026458102685.
Boyle, J. R. (2012). Note-taking and secondary students with learning disabilities: Challenges and solutions. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00354.x.
Brandt, D. (2015). The rise of writing. Redefining mass literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316106372.
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030367.
Camos, V., Lagner, P., & Barrouillet, P. (2009). Two maintenance mechanisms of verbal information in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.002.
Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000294912.
Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(Pt 2), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X116768.
Crump, M. J. C., & Logan, G. D. (2010). Hierarchical control and skilled typing: evidence for word-level control over the execution of individual keystrokes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 36(6), 1369–1380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020696.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: a national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656.
Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(2), 141–159.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.002.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600.
Frangou, S. M., Ruokamo, H., Parviainen, T., & Wikgren, J. (2018). Can you put your finger on it? The effects of writing modality on Finnish students’ recollection. Writing Systems Research, 10(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2018.1536015.
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., Cook, A., & Russell, E. M. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1–52.
Grabowski, J. (2010). Speaking, writing, and memory span in children: Output modality affects cognitive performance. International Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590902914051.
Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 7–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01761831.
Hansen, W. J., & Haas, C. (1988). Reading and writing with computers: a framework for explaining differences in performance. Communications of the ACM, 31(9), 1080–1089. https://doi.org/10.1145/48529.48532.
Janczyk, M., Aßmann, M., & Grabowski, J. (2018). Oral versus written recall of long-term memory items: Replicating and extending the writing superiority effect across knowledge domains. American Journal of Psychology, 131(3), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.131.3.0263.
Johansson, R., Wengelin, Å., Johansson, V., & Holmqvist, K. (2010). Looking at the keyboard or the monitor: Relationship with text production processes. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9189-3.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall.
Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 175. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423513.
Kellogg, R. T., & Mueller, S. (1993). Performance amplification and process restructuring in computer-based writing. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1052.
Kerr, B. (1973). Processing demands during mental operations. Memory & Cognition, 1(4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208899.
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031391.
Logan, G. D., & Crump, M. J. C. (2011). Hierarchical Control of Cognitive Processes. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. Advances in research and theory (Vol. 54, pp. 1–27). Amsterdam: Elsevier, Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00001-2.
Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Flanigan, A. E., & Peteranetz, M. S. (2018). Laptop versus longhand note taking: effects on lecture notes and achievement. Instructional Science, 46(6), 947–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9458-0.
Mangen, A., Andal, L. G., Oxborough, G. H., Bronnick, K., Anda, L. G., Oxborough, G. H., & Brønnick, K. (2015). Handwriting versus keyboard writing: Effect on word recall. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.1.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01464076.
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, Processing, and Working Memory: Implications for a Theory of Writing. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3.
Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2019). How much mightier is the pen than the keyboard for note-taking? A replication and extension of Mueller and Oppenheimer, 2014, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09468-2.
Morin, M.-F., Prévost, N., & Archambault, M.-C. (2009). Effet de différentes pratiques d’éveil à l’écrit en maternelle sur l’appropriation du français écrit. Spirale. Revue de Recherches En Éducation, 44(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.3406/spira.2009.1172.
Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing, 25(3), 641–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5.
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581.
New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(3), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598.
Olive, T. (2004). Working memory in writing: empirical evidence from the dual-task technique. European Psychologist, 9(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.9.1.32.
Olive, T. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4.
Olive, T., Alves, R. A., & Castro, S. L. (2009). Cognitive processes in writing during pauses and execution periods. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 758–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802079850.
Olive, T., & Barbier, M. L. (2017). Processing time and cognitive effort of longhand note taking when reading and summarizing a structured or linear text. Written Communication, 34(2), 224–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317699898.
Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2002). The triple task technique for studying the process of writing. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0468-8.
Peereman, R., Lété, B., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2007). Manulex-infra: Distributional characteristics of grapheme-phoneme mappings, and infralexical and lexical units in child-directed written material. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193029.
Peverly, S. T., & Sumowski, J. F. (2012). What variables predict quality of text notes and are text notes related to performance on different types of tests? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1802.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., Roussey, J. Y., Thunin, O., & Ziegler, J. C. (1999). Scriptkell: A tool for measuring cognitive effort and time processing in writing and other complex cognitive activities. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31(1), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207701.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J. Y., & Thunin, O. (1997). Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 47(4), 565–589. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1997.0145.
Power, M. J. (1986). A technique for measuring processing load during speech production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15(5), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067720.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1980). Copying span as a measure of the information burden in written language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(5), 562–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90617-9.
Sharma, A. K., Fridman, S., Gleichgerrcht, E., & Sposato, L. A. (2019). Dystextia and dystypia as modern stroke symptoms: A case series and literature review. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 180, 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.02.001.
Smoker, T. J., Murphy, C. E., & Rockwell, A. K. (2009). Comparing Memory for Handwriting versus Typing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53(22), 1744–1747. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120905302218.
Troia, G., Lin, S., Monroe, B., & Cohen, S. (2009). The effect of writing workshop instruction on the performance and motivation of good and poor writers. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling writers: Evidence-based practices (pp. 77–104). New York: Guilford Press.
Tucha, O., Mecklinger, L., Walitza, S., & Lange, K. W. (2006). Attention and movement execution during handwriting. Human Movement Science, 25(4–5), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2006.06.002.
Urry, H. L., Crittle, C. S., Floercke, V. A., Leonard, M. Z., Perry III, C. S., Azdilek, N., Albert, E. R., Block, A. J., Bollinger, C. A., Bowers, E. M., Brody, A. J., Burk, K. C., Burnstein, A., Chan, A. K., Chan, P. C., Chang, L. J., Chen, E., Chiarawongse, C. P., Chin, A.A.A, …, Jonah, Z. (2014, in press). Don’t ditch the laptop just yet: A direct replication of Mueller and Oppenheimer’s study 1 plus mini-meta-analyses across similar studies. Psychological Science.
van Sommers, P. (1984). Drawing and cognition: Descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Waes, L., & Schellens, P. J. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(6), 829–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00121-2.
Vander Hart, N., Fitzpatrick, P., & Cortesa, C. (2010). In-depth analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms. Reading and Writing, 23(6), 673–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9178-6.
Weigelt-Marom, H., & Weintraub, N. (2018). Keyboarding versus handwriting speed of higher education students with and without learning disabilities: Does touch-typing assist in narrowing the gap? Computers and Education, 117, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.008.
Wollscheid, S., Sjaastad, J., Tømte, C., & Løver, N. (2016). The effect of pen and paper or tablet computer on early writing: A pilot study. Computers & Education, 98, 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.008.
Yamaguchi, M., & Logan, G. D. (2014). Pushing typists back on the learning curve: Revealing chunking in skilled typewriting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(2), 592–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033809.
Yamamoto, K. (2007). Banning laptops in the classroom: Is it worth the hassle? Journal of Legal Education, 57, 477–520.
Funding
This work was supported by a Doctoral Grant from the Région Nouvelle Aquitaine, France to Sirine Bouriga and by a grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR-18-CE23-0024-02.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Centre for Research on Cognition and Learning (Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l’Apprentissage - UMR 7295), a joint research unit of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique or CNRS) and of the University of Poitiers, France.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Texts to copy used in Experiment 1
Vendredi, c’est la fête de l’école. Armando est dans sa chambre. Il met ses beaux vêtements: c’est la fête de l’école. Il enfile un pantalon blanc, une chemise blanche et un manteau. Armando va danser et chanter devant son papa et sa maman, et devant tous les parents. Sa maman lui dit qu'il est temps de partir sinon il va être en retard. Armando prend son manteau. Quand il sort dans la rue, le vent se lève et souffle si fort que les branches se cassent sur la caravane. Le chapeau d’Armando s’envole. C’est la tempête. Tous les enfants entrent en courant dans la cour de l’école. Les enfants sont trempés. Les lampes de la classe sont allumées. L’orage éclate: il tonne si fort que les vitres tremblent. Les enfants chantent une petite chanson pour se rassurer. C’est le jour du départ. Le maître nous emmène à la ferme. J’aime les animaux. Mais il ne fait pas beau, il fait frais. Je mets un bonnet et un bon pull en laine. Maman prépare mon pique-nique: elle met dans un sac, un paquet de gâteaux, une brique de lait et une bouteille d’eau. Le bus arrive et nous montons dedans. Hélène me demande si je connais le nom des bébés animaux ? Armelle répond que oui. Les bébés cochons s’appellent des cochonnets ou des porcelets, les bébés coqs sont les coquelets et les bébés poules s’appellent des poulets. Je lui dis que non, les bébés poules sont les poussins.
C’est les vacances: Armando et Valentine dorment sous la tente. Ils campent sous les arbres, devant la caravane. Maman et papa dorment au chaud dans la caravane. Dimanche, pendant la nuit, le vent se lève et souffle si fort que les branches se cassent. Les vêtements d'Armando et Valentine s'envolent et la pluie commence à tomber. Valentine et Armando rentrent en courant. Ils n’ont même pas le temps de prendre un manteau. Maman va chercher les enfants qui arrivent en courant. Papa leur demande de vite se mettre à l'abri. Il leur explique que pendant la tempête, il ne faut pas être dehors parce que le vent risque de les emporter. Valentine et Armando se demandent si le vent est assez fort pour emporter la caravane. Ils ne sont pas rassurés. Nous arrivons à la ferme. Il y a beaucoup d’animaux. Une dame nous dit bonjour et nous emmène dans l’étable pour voir une vache et son veau. Nous allons ensuite dans la porcherie découvrir les porcs: une truie et ses bébés porcelets se roulent dans la boue. Dans l’écurie, quatre chevaux tapent du pied. Puis, nous allons voir les lapins qui croquent des carottes dans leur clapier. Nous allons ensuite voir les poules qui picorent dans le poulailler. Il fait beau. Nous nous installons, alors, dans le pré pas loin d’une mare d’eau pour manger notre pique-nique. Notre maître nous ramène des gâteaux préparés par sa femme Hélène.
Appendix 2
Experiment 2a: List 1
Series | Block size | Item | Length | Syllables | Frequency | Consistency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 4 | sens | 4 | 1 | 217.5 | 69.88 |
tour | 4 | 1 | 280.27 | 99.457 | ||
effet | 5 | 2 | 173.18 | 42.643 | ||
départ | 6 | 2 | 116.96 | 81.633 | ||
5 | frère | 5 | 1 | 142.36 | 64.516 | |
chien | 5 | 1 | 117.64 | 78.307 | ||
année | 5 | 2 | 128.99 | 48.88 | ||
regard | 6 | 2 | 354.93 | 78.133 | ||
ciel | 4 | 1 | 301.76 | 66.353 | ||
6 | âme | 3 | 1 | 129.53 | 45 | |
bois | 4 | 1 | 299.46 | 79.25 | ||
époque | 6 | 2 | 132.7 | 57.132 | ||
odeur | 5 | 2 | 159.86 | 96.368 | ||
robe | 4 | 1 | 111.96 | 82.175 | ||
enfant | 6 | 2 | 381.96 | 59.243 | ||
7 | pied | 4 | 1 | 248.18 | 50.52 | |
heure | 5 | 1 | 439.86 | 79.428 | ||
image | 5 | 2 | 119.39 | 74.994 | ||
maman | 5 | 2 | 140.2 | 92.453 | ||
endroit | 7 | 2 | 108.65 | 82.47 | ||
type | 4 | 1 | 145.95 | 53.915 | ||
café | 4 | 2 | 154.93 | 62.145 | ||
2 | 1 | cas | 3 | 1 | 217.36 | 60.633 |
bras | 4 | 1 | 487.97 | 80.938 | ||
genoux | 6 | 2 | 103.99 | 58.364 | ||
début | 5 | 2 | 128.51 | 81.212 | ||
2 | pièce | 5 | 1 | 193.78 | 50.776 | |
chambre | 7 | 1 | 380.07 | 79.48 | ||
école | 5 | 2 | 128.51 | 60.692 | ||
oncle | 5 | 2 | 121.96 | 84.338 | ||
pas | 3 | 1 | 334.19 | 76.047 | ||
3 | place | 5 | 1 | 437.97 | 66.818 | |
pluie | 5 | 1 | 111.76 | 81.526 | ||
geste | 5 | 2 | 172.03 | 58.722 | ||
hasard | 6 | 2 | 118.99 | 81.928 | ||
mort | 4 | 1 | 373.99 | 80.33 | ||
passé | 5 | 2 | 112.03 | 62.975 | ||
4 | chance | 6 | 1 | 114.05 | 52.825 | |
route | 5 | 1 | 251.35 | 79.69 | ||
état | 4 | 2 | 192.03 | 62.978 | ||
visage | 6 | 2 | 490.54 | 83.245 | ||
pierre | 6 | 1 | 119.39 | 56.686 | ||
ligne | 5 | 1 | 101.01 | 82.108 | ||
ordre | 5 | 2 | 179.26 | 96.612 | ||
3 | 1 | peine | 5 | 1 | 388.24 | 53.688 |
sorte | 5 | 1 | 273.38 | 93.24 | ||
espèce | 6 | 2 | 127.23 | 45.417 | ||
mesure | 6 | 2 | 112.16 | 85.802 | ||
2 | fille | 5 | 1 | 417.03 | 61.35 | |
droite | 6 | 1 | 116.69 | 82.728 | ||
argent | 6 | 2 | 194.32 | 60.23 | ||
pays | 4 | 2 | 241.55 | 79.25 | ||
coin | 4 | 1 | 167.09 | 76.88 | ||
3 | genre | 5 | 1 | 155.2 | 42.308 | |
œil | 4 | 1 | 278.51 | 82.015 | ||
passage | 7 | 2 | 136.82 | 70.717 | ||
milieu | 6 | 2 | 246.69 | 93.342 | ||
dos | 3 | 1 | 213.99 | 60.36 | ||
village | 7 | 2 | 118.24 | 81.05 | ||
4 | cœur | 5 | 1 | 380.07 | 52.723 | |
marche | 6 | 1 | 100 | 99.102 | ||
église | 6 | 2 | 123.58 | 68.912 | ||
envie | 5 | 2 | 252.09 | 80.048 | ||
goût | 4 | 1 | 124.8 | 40.427 | ||
chef | 4 | 1 | 172.57 | 85.853 | ||
bureau | 6 | 2 | 130.07 | 92.243 |
Experiment 2a: List 2
Series | Block size | Item | Length | Syllable | Frequency | Consistency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 4 | Soeur | 5 | 1 | 116.55 | 61.997 |
Dame | 4 | 1 | 106.15 | 77.428 | ||
Service | 7 | 2 | 106.28 | 70.161 | ||
Amour | 5 | 2 | 373.58 | 86.883 | ||
5 | Cause | 5 | 1 | 188.04 | 53.513 | |
Force | 5 | 1 | 218.38 | 82.378 | ||
Armée | 5 | 2 | 114.46 | 71.086 | ||
Matin | 5 | 2 | 376.89 | 80.548 | ||
Prix | 4 | 1 | 107.5 | 74.338 | ||
6 | Guerre | 6 | 1 | 338.65 | 25.02 | |
Livre | 5 | 1 | 151.76 | 98.874 | ||
Epaule | 6 | 2 | 116.96 | 53.05 | ||
Mari | 4 | 2 | 118.38 | 98.745 | ||
Nom | 3 | 1 | 326.89 | 53.155 | ||
Cour | 4 | 1 | 150.14 | 84.307 | ||
7 | Long | 4 | 1 | 170.07 | 60.297 | |
Part | 4 | 1 | 306.22 | 80.548 | ||
Affaire | 7 | 2 | 150.54 | 48.622 | ||
Nouveau | 7 | 2 | 190.47 | 93.713 | ||
Bord | 4 | 1 | 197.36 | 74.125 | ||
Musique | 7 | 2 | 109.8 | 76.21 | ||
Doute | 5 | 1 | 341.35 | 79.69 | ||
2 | 4 | Paix | 4 | 1 | 103.72 | 42.26 |
Feu | 3 | 1 | 199.39 | 95.755 | ||
Famille | 7 | 2 | 241.69 | 72.82 | ||
Cheveux | 7 | 2 | 263.18 | 79.704 | ||
5 | Vent | 4 | 1 | 207.64 | 53.81 | |
Fer | 3 | 1 | 106.28 | 95.96 | ||
Hôtel | 5 | 2 | 143.78 | 71.896 | ||
Fenêtre | 7 | 2 | 199.39 | 80.291 | ||
Ville | 5 | 1 | 311.69 | 76.52 | ||
6 | Fond | 4 | 1 | 376.15 | 58.167 | |
Mur | 3 | 1 | 172.57 | 99.22 | ||
Instant | 7 | 2 | 285.88 | 56.658 | ||
Chaleur | 7 | 2 | 112.23 | 94.498 | ||
Joie | 4 | 1 | 134.12 | 72.893 | ||
Oreille | 7 | 2 | 103.45 | 57.522 | ||
7 | Nez | 3 | 1 | 177.64 | 55.375 | |
Forme | 5 | 1 | 137.91 | 93.342 | ||
Côté | 4 | 2 | 497.43 | 46.853 | ||
Mémoire | 7 | 2 | 105.74 | 80.933 | ||
Prix | 4 | 1 | 107.5 | 74.338 | ||
Lieu | 4 | 1 | 213.38 | 96.247 | ||
Enfance | 7 | 2 | 103.11 | 53.056 | ||
3 | 4 | Terre | 5 | 1 | 420.88 | 48.373 |
Sol | 3 | 1 | 148.31 | 93.463 | ||
Semaine | 5 | 2 | 111.89 | 65.963 | ||
Voyage | 6 | 2 | 110.54 | 81.05 | ||
5 | Bruit | 5 | 1 | 223.18 | 84.204 | |
Lit | 3 | 1 | 315.74 | 75.137 | ||
Sommeil | 7 | 2 | 112.03 | 72.152 | ||
Journal | 7 | 2 | 124.32 | 94.872 | ||
Poche | 5 | 1 | 101.82 | 82.173 | ||
6 | Age | 3 | 1 | 205.27 | 43.547 | |
Rire | 4 | 1 | 112.57 | 81.01 | ||
Accord | 6 | 2 | 124.66 | 53.548 | ||
Bonheur | 7 | 2 | 156.35 | 78.982 | ||
Langue | 6 | 1 | 103.78 | 52.045 | ||
Peur | 4 | 1 | 307.23 | 97.877 | ||
7 | Corps | 5 | 1 | 480.34 | 57.964 | |
Sac | 3 | 1 | 125.47 | 91.007 | ||
Silence | 7 | 2 | 313.24 | 58.232 | ||
Cuisine | 7 | 2 | 123.31 | 80.086 | ||
Gueule | 6 | 1 | 100.14 | 52.073 | ||
Droit | 5 | 1 | 138.72 | 80.17 | ||
Ami | 3 | 2 | 140.14 | 82.6 |
Appendix 3
Experiment 2b: Additional words used in blocks 8 and 9
Lists | Series | Block size | Item | Length | Syllable | Frequency | Consistency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 8 | face | 4 | 1 | 262.16 | 61.703 |
plaisir | 7 | 2 | 208.78 | 79.34 | |||
maison | 6 | 2 | 461.55 | 78.238 | |||
dieu | 4 | 1 | 368.51 | 96.247 | |||
train | 5 | 1 | 271.28 | 71.043 | |||
journée | 7 | 2 | 140.74 | 80.167 | |||
garçon | 6 | 2 | 186.96 | 77.47 | |||
cheval | 6 | 2 | 110.27 | 99.164 | |||
9 | façon | 5 | 2 | 259.26 | 72.373 | ||
sourire | 7 | 2 | 40.34 | 83.398 | |||
voiture | 7 | 2 | 221.15 | 85.2 | |||
présent | 7 | 2 | 137.23 | 72.397 | |||
signe | 5 | 1 | 119.19 | 77.503 | |||
papier | 6 | 2 | 144.59 | 86.156 | |||
table | 5 | 1 | 341.08 | 95.664 | |||
rue | 3 | 1 | 449.53 | 75.773 | |||
lettre | 6 | 1 | 140.88 | 73.046 | |||
2 | 8 | gauche | 6 | 1 | 133.78 | 64.743 | |
suite | 5 | 1 | 270.88 | 79.99 | |||
maître | 6 | 1 | 125.74 | 77.314 | |||
travail | 7 | 2 | 223.99 | 99.113 | |||
chemin | 6 | 2 | 197.5 | 77.143 | |||
jeu | 3 | 1 | 130.68 | 95.09 | |||
esprit | 6 | 2 | 182.84 | 71.465 | |||
bouche | 6 | 1 | 267.64 | 82.195 | |||
9 | manière | 7 | 2 | 134.66 | 72.619 | ||
front | 5 | 1 | 152.57 | 73.733 | |||
couleur | 7 | 2 | 118.65 | 85.15 | |||
idée | 4 | 2 | 241.08 | 75.215 | |||
besoin | 6 | 2 | 251.76 | 97.97 | |||
raison | 6 | 2 | 247.5 | 78.238 | |||
foule | 5 | 1 | 101.62 | 74.985 | |||
retour | 6 | 2 | 153.31 | 97.106 | |||
lumière | 7 | 2 | 238.65 | 71.71 | |||
3 | 8 | soleil | 6 | 2 | 328.78 | 84.014 | |
exemple | 7 | 2 | 119.19 | 76.495 | |||
jardin | 6 | 2 | 148.72 | 83.67 | |||
reste | 5 | 1 | 153.99 | 76.908 | |||
ventre | 6 | 1 | 136.62 | 84.068 | |||
ombre | 5 | 1 | 190.61 | 74.393 | |||
scène | 5 | 1 | 95.27 | 31.003 | |||
hiver | 5 | 2 | 96.28 | 99.393 | |||
9 | côte | 4 | 1 | 90.74 | 46.03 | ||
premier | 7 | 2 | 237.91 | 86.195 | |||
nature | 6 | 2 | 93.45 | 85.468 | |||
rôle | 4 | 1 | 88.51 | 54.905 | |||
patron | 6 | 2 | 93.85 | 95.836 | |||
souffle | 7 | 1 | 93.18 | 77.142 | |||
classe | 6 | 1 | 90.74 | 56.314 | |||
sable | 5 | 1 | 87.91 | 90.228 | |||
colère | 6 | 2 | 92.77 | 61.18 | |||
2 | 1 | 8 | rêve | 4 | 1 | 80.2 | 58.4 |
honte | 5 | 1 | 82.64 | 74.793 | |||
femme | 5 | 1 | 680.2 | 73.677 | |||
roi | 3 | 1 | 85.95 | 99.925 | |||
arrière | 7 | 2 | 90.27 | 49.475 | |||
toile | 5 | 1 | 81.35 | 76.625 | |||
vieux | 5 | 1 | 273.31 | 72.858 | |||
pouvoir | 7 | 2 | 114.39 | 99.516 | |||
9 | police | 6 | 1 | 81.69 | 71.998 | ||
herbe | 5 | 1 | 86.08 | 90.924 | |||
propos | 5 | 1 | 106.28 | 76.93 | |||
salon | 5 | 2 | 84.12 | 88.603 | |||
gare | 3 | 1 | 78.58 | 79.845 | |||
docteur | 6 | 2 | 83.11 | 90.463 | |||
rapport | 4 | 2 | 87.23 | 72.217 | |||
fils | 5 | 1 | 23.78 | 71.07 | |||
soir | 6 | 2 | 527.23 | 93.337 | |||
2 | 8 | sujet | 5 | 2 | 88.04 | 57.496 | |
forêt | 5 | 2 | 91.89 | 63.438 | |||
repas | 5 | 2 | 76.62 | 82.078 | |||
petit | 5 | 2 | 653.78 | 82.356 | |||
parole | 6 | 2 | 81.82 | 83.913 | |||
avance | 6 | 2 | 40.88 | 55.966 | |||
chaise | 6 | 1 | 86.35 | 62.16 | |||
honneur | 7 | 2 | 87.64 | 81.464 | |||
9 | veille | 6 | 1 | 87.36 | 49.99 | ||
gorge | 5 | 1 | 82.64 | 92.92 | |||
boîte | 5 | 1 | 94.32 | 55.235 | |||
désir | 5 | 2 | 96.69 | 95.202 | |||
île | 3 | 1 | 83.58 | 36.523 | |||
espace | 6 | 2 | 78.58 | 60.443 | |||
papa | 4 | 2 | 77.16 | 95.35 | |||
porte | 5 | 1 | 536.96 | 96.924 | |||
beauté | 6 | 2 | 87.64 | 58.333 | |||
3 | 8 | centre | 6 | 1 | 80 | 67.346 | |
figure | 6 | 2 | 77.7 | 81.437 | |||
moment | 6 | 2 | 611.62 | 68.142 | |||
nuit | 4 | 1 | 672.36 | 81.353 | |||
réponse | 7 | 2 | 83.72 | 68.733 | |||
groupe | 6 | 1 | 85.88 | 80.884 | |||
couloir | 7 | 2 | 80.47 | 86.11 | |||
siècle | 6 | 1 | 79.05 | 69.975 | |||
9 | peuple | 6 | 1 | 89.39 | 91.73 | ||
phrase | 6 | 1 | 86.76 | 63.838 | |||
visite | 6 | 2 | 80.61 | 85.415 | |||
art | 3 | 1 | 81.49 | 63.503 | |||
espoir | 6 | 2 | 90.74 | 81.24 | |||
chose | 5 | 1 | 695.2 | 67.04 | |||
madame | 6 | 2 | 198.72 | 84.925 | |||
faute | 5 | 1 | 81.08 | 61.675 | |||
effort | 6 | 2 | 98.18 | 61.004 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bouriga, S., Olive, T. Is typewriting more resources-demanding than handwriting in undergraduate students?. Read Writ 34, 2227–2255 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10137-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10137-6