Abstract

This study addresses the current debate about the beneficial effects of text processing software on students with different working memory (WM) during the process of academic writing, especially with regard to the ability to display higher-level conceptual thinking. A total of 54 graduate students (15 male, 39 female) wrote one essay by hand and one by keyboard. Our results show a beneficial effect of text processing software, in terms of both the qualitative and quantitative writing output. A hierarchical cluster analysis was used to detect distinct performance groups in the sample. These performance groups mapped onto three differing working memory profiles. The groups with higher mean WM scores manifested superior writing complexity using a keyboard, in contrast to the cluster with the lowest mean WM. The results also point out that more revision during the writing process itself does not inevitably reduce the quality of the final output.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2017-07-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088317714232
Open Access
OA PDF Green
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Computers and Composition
  2. Written Communication

Cites in this index (3)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Research in the Teaching of English
Also cites 54 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.3758/BF03192780
  2. 10.22237/jmasm/1367380860
  3. 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
  4. 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
  5. 10.3102/00346543063001069
  6. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00281.x
  7. 10.2307/27740364
  8. 10.1207/s15326942dn2901_5
  9. 10.53841/bpsecp.2003.20.3.19
    Educational and Child Psychology  
  10. 10.1007/s11145-013-9446-3
  11. 10.1016/j.asw.2006.11.003
  12. 10.2307/357975
  13. 10.1016/j.asw.2010.11.001
  14. 10.1348/0007099042376373
  15. 10.3758/BF03196772
  16. 10.3758/s13423-016-1191-6
  17. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.001
  18. 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
  19. 10.1037/0278-7393.9.4.561
  20. 10.1207/s15326977ea0903&4_4
  21. 10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00162-4
  22. 10.3200/MONO.130.1.4-112
  23. 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211
  24. 10.3758/BF03193146
  25. 10.1080/14640749408401119
  26. 10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.477
  27. 10.2307/356630
  28. 10.2307/356600
  29. 10.1177/001872088102300509
  30. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
  31. 10.2307/2346830
  32. 10.2307/1593683
  33. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00251.x
  34. 10.1080/10790195.2010.10850331
  35. 10.1207/S15327051HCI172&3_2
  36. 10.1007/s11145-011-9348-1
  37. 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.1
  38. 10.1201/9780203483374
  39. 10.1007/BF01464076
  40. 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3
  41. 10.1177/1469787412441297
  42. 10.1177/0956797614524581
  43. 10.1027/1016-9040.9.1.32
  44. 10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4
  45. 10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_10
  46. 10.1348/000711005X48266
  47. 10.1016/0160-2896(93)90003-N
  48. 10.1006/jecp.1996.0054
  49. 10.1111/1467-9868.00293
  50. 10.4324/9781410600943
  51. 10.1177/00222194020350040101
  52. 10.1007/s11145-006-9046-6
  53. 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.004
  54. 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00121-2
CrossRef global citation count: 8 View in citation network →