Search

Should the writing construct be assessed through handwriting or keyboarding? As the only major language entirely without a syllabary or alphabet, the Chinese writing system is unique among modern languages, thus the question of writing proficiency is complicated by character recall. Most of the testing research comparing text entry methods has been conducted in English and has found that keyboarding and handwriting can be used interchangeably. This paper reports the outcome of a study comparing the results of handwritten and typed versions of the Chinese ACTFL Writing Proficiency Test (WPT). L2 Chinese students (n = 25) with Intermediate to Superior speaking skills were randomly divided into two groups and took both WPT versions in a counterbalanced design. Keyboarding resulted in significantly higher test scores [repeated measures ANOVA F(1, 23) = 62.7, p <.001, effect size partial eta squared =.73]. Keyboarding was on average 1.69 ACTFL sublevels higher than handwriting. Finally, this paper will discuss the writing construct in Chinese along with pedagogical implications around curricular decisions on teaching and assessing handwriting vs. keyboarding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Should the writing construct be assessed through handwriting or keyboarding? As the only major language entirely without a syllabary or alphabet, the Chinese writing system is unique among modern languages, thus the question of writing proficiency is complicated by character recall. Most of the testing research comparing text entry methods has been conducted in English and has found that keyboarding and handwriting can be used interchangeably. This paper reports the outcome of a study comparing the results of handwritten and typed versions of the Chinese ACTFL Writing Proficiency Test (WPT). L2 Chinese students (n = 25) with Intermediate to Superior speaking skills were randomly divided into two groups and took both WPT versions in a counterbalanced design. Keyboarding resulted in significantly higher test scores [repeated measures ANOVA F(1, 23) = 62.7, p <.001, effect size partial eta squared =.73]. Keyboarding was on average 1.69 ACTFL sublevels higher than handwriting. Finally, this paper will discuss the writing construct in Chinese along with pedagogical implications around curricular decisions on teaching and assessing handwriting vs. keyboarding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]