Academic writing technique: the influence of stenography on students’ academic performance in higher education

Abstract

The use of stenography writing has in the recent past been faced with challenges about how, where, and when it is appropriate to be used in the teaching and learning process. The main objective of the study is to determine whether stenography writing has any major impact on the writing ability of students and their academic performance. The study adopted a mixed method design, guided by survey questionnaires and WhatsApp focus group interviews. The study included 50 undergraduate students from 1^st to final-year who visited an academic writing Centre between 2017 and 2019 and were selected through cluster sampling. The presentation of findings is descriptive in nature and was analysed using SPSS and thematic analysis. Findings reveal that stenography writing can easily corrupt the writing ability of students, as well as result in the misconception and misinterpretation of ideas. On a positive note, however, it can facilitate the teaching and learning process by easing the flow of communication and subsequently enhancing student learning outcomes.

Keywords:

• Academic writing
• stenography
• shorthand writing
• communication
• teaching & learning
• Academic performance
• Writing ability
• Higher education
• Writing centre

Reviewing Editor:

• Arif H Kabir, School of Education, Deakin University School of Education, Australia

Subjects:

• Communication Technology; Teaching Methodology & Practice; Classroom Practice; Teaching & Learning; Curriculum Studies; Teaching Performance; Language & Communication; Creative Writing

Introduction and background to the problem

The word Stenography, also known as shorthand writing, can be traced as far back as the Ancient Greek period around the 4^th Century BC with Heinrich Roller as one of the founding fathers (Ma’aji, 2020; Moon & Sim, 2012). Before this period, the scribes of Ancient Egypt had developed two different writing styles namely the Hieratic and Demotic, which brought about a change in academic writing that was quicker than hieroglyphics and was used mainly for monumental inscriptions (Gadalla, 2017). In line with this view, Posner (1995) and most recently Khair and Syukri (2018) allude to the view that university students need to master note-taking and the use of shorthand as it can enhance listening comprehension. Hence, for shorthand writing to be successful, the vowels must be dropped so that a word is left with the abbreviations to help one increase note-taking speed while writing. Subsequently, shorthand writing could be described as a systematic and informal way of writing whereby a word is written in an incomplete manner so that it appears as an acronym or an abbreviation (authors’ version).

Historically, shorthand, which was used interchangeably with stenography in this study was an inventive approach that every journalist had to learn before the emergence of technology and the now widely used recording system (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Similarly, Gadalla (2017) thinks that shorthand has been the core and anchor for secretarial educators and administrators that employs symbols to represent words, phrases, and letters. Shorthand is one of the many subjects taught in vocational business studies (Esene, 2009), as well as one of the world-renowned academic writing approaches used in the university environment. It is, therefore, a contemporary issue that is worthy to be investigated.

Academic writing, according to Holm and Earl (2015), is comprehended as the most important medium of communication through which people in the tertiary academic context choose to convey their thoughts and ideas. It is common among lecturers, tutors, academic mentors, and students in dealing with learning and addressing some of the requirements of the 4^th Industrial Revolution (4IR) within universities and/or tertiary educational environments. However, academic writing through the years has proven to be problematic as many students are unsure of how to get words to write or where to learn how to write, until their exit level (final year) at tertiary education. Writing consistently and coherently while addressing the core issues of the learning process remains challenging. A study conducted by Thurlow (2006) in this regard points to the view that the enormously predominant shorthand usage is indeed damaging English literacy. This is further elaborated by Rosen et al. (2010) as they disclose that the daily use of different varieties of stenography through electronic communication is causing students to lose the ability to write an acceptable English text.

Fundamentally, there exist different types of shorthand writing styles used by various sectors and organisations such as in journalism, educational institutions, business and even in the health sector by medical practitioners. Most shorthand writing styles according to Moon & Sim (2017) use the phonetic representation of a word as opposed to the actual spelling of the word. The most used types of shorthand writing that are related to the context of academic writing are the following:

The Pitman shorthand

Pitman shorthand was invented by Sir Isaac Pitman in 1813 and published in 1837 (Moon & Sim, 2017). The Pitman shorthand according to Gadalla (2017), was characterised by the following:

• It records the sound of a word rather than the spelling. For example, the sound ‘f’ for form and elephant is written most probably in the same way.

• The vowel sounds are written with small dots and dash next to the main strokes because most words can be identified from their consonants alone.

• Has many special abbreviations used in the writing process to increase writing speed to over 350 words per minute.

The system according to Esene (2009) was widely used in the United Kingdom and the United States of America by secretaries, reporters, and writers, but could not stand the test of time following the emergence of technology and the invention of tape recorders.

The Gregg shorthand

Unlike Pitman, the Gregg Shorthand is a system of pen stenography that also gained popularity in the USA in the 20^th Century and was named after its founder John Robert Gregg in 1867. This writing style is mostly used by office workers as well as academics in correcting students’ work (Butler, 2006). Using Gregg shorthand comprises both signs and phonetic representation such as:

• ‘SP’ for spelling

• ‘WW’ for wrong word

• ‘˄’ for missing word

The system can however be very tricky in that if the transcription is not done almost immediately, it can result in forgetting the exact word that one intended to write. According to Moon and Sim (2012), if one writes something and then immediately transcribes it, as done by secretaries, then it limits any major problems that might be encountered. Moreover, if left for a much longer period like a year, reading it might require a major effort to interpret, unless it was well mastered by the user.

The Teeline shorthand

The Teeline shorthand was founded in 1970 by James Hill who was also an instructor of Pitman shorthand (Moon & Sim, 2012). Very similar to Pitman, the Teeling shorthand is mostly used by journalism scholars in most Commonwealth countries, as well as by Secretaries in courtrooms while taking notes for court reporting. With regards to the writing styles of judges, Posner (1995) acknowledges that when using shorthand, it is important to start and end sentences with keywords, because the beginning and the last words in a sentence are vital. Just like Pitman, Teeline shorthand was equally challenged by the emergence of tape recorders which resulted in its validity is questionable. Closely examining these different categories of shorthand writing, shows that though they are all closely related, the Gregg shorthand is the most relevant in this context.

Academic writing as a determinant of student learning outcome

Numerous factors have repeatedly been attributed to the reasons for poor student academic performance. These factors, which are sometimes conceived differently, include English proficiency, learning resources, teacher competence or pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), school leadership quality, family, and socioeconomic background (Maher, 2011; Manwa, 2014; Sothan, 2019; Tabe et al., 2021). In view of this current study, Maher (2011) holds that academic literacy which encompasses reading, writing, hearing, or talking, has been determined as the main reason for student performance or underperformance at the tertiary level of education. Hence, this is an indication of a positive relationship between communication and student performance. This, however, differs from findings from other researchers such as Sothan (2019) who point to the availability of resources vis a vis the socio-economic background of the parents as a standout determinant of student academic performance.

A further elaboration on the relevance of writing in relation to academic performance, Maher (2011) alludes to the idea that writing is the highest and most sophisticated form of human communication because one’s understanding of information is also demonstrated through one’s writing. This is glaring in the context of South African communities where the students from rural areas are taught in their home language in an attempt to enhance their understanding of the content at the expense of the language of teaching and learning which is mostly English. The researchers of this study thus conceptualized English proficiency to mean the skill or capability of a person to communicate both verbally and by writing, without which the performance of the student might be affected. Though a strong determinant, Maher (2011) believes that academic writing ability is not the only contributing factor to student academic performance, but rather a combination of reading, speaking, and writing.

The Taxonomy of Significant Learning Experiences theory (TSLE)

The TSLE theory which underpins the study is guided by a perspective of learning that measures learning in terms of change. The use of stenography, though long in existence, continues to be relevant in the higher education sector following the introduction and integration of technology into teaching and learning. Fink (2013) argues that significant learning requires that there must be a lasting change that is important to the student’s life. The TSLE as proposed by Fink (2013) includes foundational knowledge, application, integration, learning how to learn, caring (i.e. developing new feelings, interests, and values) and the human dimension (i.e. learning about oneself). The relevance of the theory is on the basis that it contributes to the creation of a learning environment that allows students to use their knowledge and skills in various forms such as shorthand writing for as long as it enhances their learning ability. This would further enhance critical thinking, applying knowledge to new situations, analysing of information, comprehending new ideas, communicating, collaborating, solving problems, and making decisions (Van Laar et al., 2017), hence improving on student academic performance.

Problem statement and objectives

Academic writing in the higher education sector is a critical issue that requires a lot of attention from all stakeholders involved in the teaching and learning process. The severity of this problem as described by Holm and Earl (2015), is such that thinking and writing are regarded as the greatest difficulty faced by young students especially those in their first year of tertiary education. This situation is a typical reflection of what is happening in tertiary education across South Africa, where consultations with students at the writing centre/reading laboratory as the case might be, revealed that even at the exit level (final year), students are still unable to construct a well phrased and grammatically correct essay. The situation is further compounded following the emergence and the integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into teaching and learning in conformance with the 21^st-century classroom practice (Keane et al., 2016) and the 4IR requirements, characterised by the use of gadgets. This is crucial at a time when tertiary institutions expect a lot of changes from students in terms of improving their academic writing ability (Holm & Earl, 2015) as well as their performance.

Apart from the largely identified problems in the South African higher education system such as the language of learning, environmental concerns, and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of educators (Asikhia, 2010; Haydn & Harris, 2010; Tabe et al., 2021), the change in the writing style of students is and has always been a caricature in the system, that needs to be addressed. This problem is equally emphasised by Wingate and Tribble (2012), who raise concerns over the capacity of newly enrolled students to write effectively, or to use the English language judiciously in the academic writing process. The researchers however acknowledge the constant development in ICT; the 4IR requirements; the use of shorthand in the academic writing process as well as the advent of Covid 19 pandemic as major challenges affecting students in the academic writing process. It is against this background that the authors, (who previously worked at an Academic Development Centre, offering a variety of services including how to write an academically accepted essay), embarked on this study to help improve student writing ability and performance thereof.

At the university level, some of the main forms of assessment include written assessment during a class test or examination and assignments. These methods of assessment that sometimes take the form of an essay, for example, require students to use and understand specific disciplinary conventions, including the use of evidence through referencing (Holm & Earl, 2015), which many of the students are usually unable to do. Reading through students’ scripts during consultation sessions, the researchers found out that when students write, they knowingly or unknowingly make use of shorthand in their essays as they normally do during a friendly media App (e.g. WhatsApp, Messenger, etc.) conversation. The degree of this problem is one that can leave educators and examiners uncertain about the intended idea of the student. The specific objectives of the study include:

• To explore reasons why students knowingly or unknowingly use shorthand in the academic writing process,

• To determine whether the rise in the use of technology and shorthand has any major influence on students’ academic writing ability and performance.

• To determine what students find most difficult in the academic writing process.

Materials and methods

The study adopted a methodological triangulation genre, guided by a survey questionnaire and two online focus group interviews through WhatsApp comprising of fifty respondents (n = 50) who visited a writing centre/reading laboratory between the 2017/2019 academic years. The sample size was determined using the Raosoft online software with an error margin set at 10%, a confidence level set at 90% from a population size of 180 first and final year students. It is important to note that while final year students across the 4 other faculties were at the 3^rd year of their study, those in the Faculty of Education were at their 4^th year. These respondents were selected using cluster sampling and were divided into non-overlapping groups representing all 5 faculties within a campus of the university. The cluster sampling which assisted in classifying respondents into various groups was in this context petty straight forward as respondents represented the various faculties in which they belong. Due to the variation of the population, it was necessary to first identify the various clusters which involved 5 faculties namely the Faculty of Education, Humanities, Law, Economic and Management Sciences, and Natural and Agricultural Sciences with the intention to make sure all 5 faculties are equally represented. A random sampling was then necessary to give every participant within the 5 faculties an equal chance of participating in the individual interview. In a nutshell, both cluster and simple random sampling were used to complement each other moving from cluster to random sampling respectively.

The data collection process was sequentially done, moving from a quantitative questionnaire to a qualitative online focus group interview. The authors adopted the sequential research approach with the knowledge that quantitative research relies mostly on surveys and experiments which may not capture all the nuances of a phenomenon. Moving from surveys to interviews, therefore, helped the researchers to validate and provide additional insights into the quantitative findings by allowing participants during interviews to share their experiences and perceptions in depth. On that note, the quantitative data collection involving all 50 respondents was first conducted using structured questions comprising of the different response scale types such as yes or no; agree or disagree and satisfied or unsatisfied. Using over 25 questions allocated across 5 sections, the first section was made up of question addressing biographical data while the rest of the sections addressed the objectives of the study. Examples of the structured question included ‘What Faculty are you?’, and ‘Does short handwriting influence your academic performance?’.

The second phase of data collection which emanates from the first was the qualitative focus group interviews and was aimed at revising the research approach after obtaining the preliminary findings as well as address complex questions in depth. Some considerations for research ethics were observed in this low risk research. As a writing consultant and academic advisor respectively in a writing centre, it was obligatory for students to complete a survey to determine their level of satisfaction during their visit. As part of the research ethics these students were provided with sufficient information about the research and were requested whether they consent to their data being used for research or not. Only those who consented were the participants of this research. Moreover, the participants signed an informed consent form ensuring anonymity, voluntary participation and non-disclosure to protect their identity. This was followed by the creation of 2 separate WhatsApp groups comprising of 10 randomly selected students across the 5 clusters. During the interview process, open-ended questions were posted on the group page chronologically by the interviewers, while participants gave their responses randomly. The rationale behind this data collection approach was based on the researchers desire to determine the validity and reliability of the WFGI data as an online data collection method, as opposed to the usual face-to-face focus group interview. Content validity of the study was further ensured during the preparation of the measuring tools where the measuring instruments were shared with other colleagues within the university who are experts in the area to make sure the research questions cover all the objectives. Adequate feedback was provided by all 3 experts on how well each question measures the construct in question.

Unlike the commonly known rationale for conducting a mixed method study, which is that one method is stronger than the other, and therefore not adequate to be used in isolation, this study made use of a mixed method design based on the concept of triangulation. Using specifically the methodological triangulation approach, the researchers seek to enhance the validity and credibility of the findings as well as mitigate the presence of possible research biases in the study. By triangulation, both quantitative and qualitative findings were merged using descriptive analysis and discussion to obtain a more valid conclusion through convergence and divergence (Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016). A triangulated discussion and conclusion were therefore obtained by comparing statistical results from a quantitative survey, analysed using SPSS, with results obtained from qualitative WhatsApp focus group interviews obtained through thematic analysis.

Result and discussions

The findings were grouped into categories and presented based on the different themes and sub-themes relating to the three main objectives of the study. During the discussion process, specific descriptive concepts known as frequencies, cumulative and valid percentages were used as opposed to percentages with knowledge of the existence of missing variables. This clarity was done in relation to Maree’s (2014) recommendation that it is important to clarify words that are used in reporting data to determine the level or number of occurrences of a specific phenomenon in the data. Also, the findings and discussions were presented using an interdependent approach in which the researchers intentionally merged the quantitative and qualitative data sources to address common themes while the biographical data which reveal a broad representation of the respondents is presented in Table 1. In some instances, direct quotations from participants were used to emphasize the relevance of specific themes or categories under discussion.

Table 1. Biographical information of participants.

Biographical Data	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Q1. Gender	Male Female	20 30	40 60
Q2. Age	<20 <23 <25	26 14 10	52 28 20
Q3. Home language	English (Mostly non-SA citizens) Afrikaans Setswana Isizulu Tshivenda IsiXhosa IsiNdebele	6 4 17 6 9 5 3	12 8 34 12 18 10 6
Q4. Level of Study	First year Second year Final year (3^rd & 4^th)	15 9 26	30 18 52
Q5. Area of study	Education Humanities Economics and Management Science Law Natural & Agricultural science	25 10 7 6 2	50 20 14 12 4

The table above is an analysis of a detailed biographical profile of students across five faculties who took part in the study, and Q1-Q5 represented the questions. An illustration from the table reveals a direct or indirect impact on student writing ability and performance thereof. The gender composition of respondents was 40% (n = 20) males and 60% (n = 30) females. The selection was based on having a true reflection of students visit to the writing centre with females making more visit than males. While the age of the participants ranging from 18-25 had little or no significance, the language of teaching and learning played a very instrumental role. Unlike in the previous category which was a reflection of the number of visits per gender, language on the other hand was an indication of the dominating category of students’ population within the university campus. Based on the analysis, the students whose home language is Setswana visited the centre the most with a percentage and frequently of 34 (n = 17) respectively while Tshivenda (n = 18), IsiXhosa (n = 10) Isizulu (n = 6) and English (n = 6) equally visited in that frequency order. Also, regarding the level and area of study the data indicated that the peak of students’ visit was in the final year with a percentage of 52% (n = 26) while the faculty with the most visit was the faculty of education having a valid percentage of 50% (n = 25). It is thus sum up that students from the Faculty of Education made the most use of the Academic writing centre which significantly influence their learning outcome.

Reasons why students use shorthand in academic writing

In trying to establish the reasons why students use shorthand in their academic writing, the researchers began by investigating the reason why students use shorthand as a way of writing as well as when and how it is used. From the quantitative results, a cumulative percentage of 82.1% of respondents attest to being active users of shorthand against 28.2% who do not. This is different from the findings of Moon & Sim (2012) which reported that the Pithand and Teeline shorthand writing, mostly used by journalists, is losing its place in contemporary society because of the emergence of the tape recorder, while Gregg shorthand which is mostly used by secretaries and thus applicable in this context of academics writing is rather on the rise.

This came about because of students’ constant usage of shorthand in chatting with friends through social media apps as well as when taking notes during classroom lessons. It is interesting to note that another 66.7% of the respondents revealed that they use shorthand writing interchangeably when chatting with friends and even more when taking down notes during class sessions to keep up with the pace of the lecturer during lectures.

In relation to the reasons for the use of shorthand writing, three main themes were identified regarding why students often use shorthand in the academic writing process. The themes include making writing faster, the use of shorthand systematically, and that it helps to hide spelling errors in cases where students find it difficult to spell a particular word. The highest valid percentage of 61.9 which represents a frequency of 13 respondents, came from respondents who revealed that: ‘Using shorthand writing is faster and easy as it entails only the use of phonetics involving special symbols like (“Ada” for other; “wlc” for welcome and “Hud” for how’re you doing) as opposed to writing the complete version of the word’.

This is similar to empirical findings by Davies (1990) who reported that the use of shorthand increases the speed of writing. Also, though with a lesser cumulative percentage, 33.3% of the participants revealed that they use shorthand writing in trying to hide their spelling errors’ (See Figure 1 below). During the WFGI a respondent specifically said that ‘using shorthand writing style ultimately hides spelling errors’. This is rather surprising to know because shorthand writing, instead of enhancing the problems of inaccuracy in academic writing, is gradually becoming a distortion in the academic writing process. Rosen et al. (2010) previously came up with similar findings as revealed in their study that the persistent use of shorthand through social media communication is causing students to lose the ability to write an acceptable English text.

Figure 1. Reasons for the use of shorthand writing.

A display of a chart showing that although up to 33.3% of the students use shorthand writing for all the wrong reasons which among others, include the desire to hide spelling errors; a greater percentage of 4.8% and 61.9% of students respectively use shorthand to facilitate their learning process.

From Figure 1 above, it is evident that although a certain number of students (up to 33.3%) use shorthand writing for all the wrong reasons which among others, include the desire to hide spelling errors; a greater percentage of 61.9% and 4.8% of students respectively use shorthand to facilitate their learning process.

The impact of technology and stenography on the writing ability of students

Shorthand writing plays a vital role in the life of students throughout their academic careers as it can determine their writing ability as well as their success. In trying to determine the extent to which modern technology and the use of shorthand have influenced students’ writing ability, findings from the quantitative survey show respondents’ cumulative percentage of over 84.44 (n = 38) pointing to the fact that students’ writing ability plays a significant role in their academic success (See Table 2). This was equally affirmed during the WFGI, where respondents indicated that: ‘When one writes poorly as a student, it makes the reader or examiner in the case of a test, assignment or examination become bored in reading through the student work’.

Table 2. Frequencies and percentages indicating the relevance of writing ability on learning outcomes.

	Frequency	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
No	7	14.0	15.56
Yes	38	76.0	84.44
Missing variables	5	10.0	100.0
Total	50	100.0

Beyond every reasonable doubt, this is based on assuming that the reader finds it difficult to comprehend the ideas which might have a negative influence on the result. On the contrary, findings by Rosen et al. (2010) bring out a completely different view that the use of shorthand has very little or no impact on student’s academic success. When asked in the quantitative survey whether modern technology and shorthand writing influence the learning outcome; the following result was obtained.

As seen in Table 2 above over 84.44% (n = 38) of the participants were of the view that the use of shorthand influences their academic results while 12.8% (n = 15.56) believed shorthand writing does not influence their academic performance.

A similar view from the empirical study affirms that the use of shorthand in academic writing could influence the reader’s comprehension of the text negatively. An earlier confirmation by Rosen et al. (2010), in this regard, confirms that the daily use of shorthand through electronic communication can cause students to lose their ability to write in the proper English language. This, of course, is an indication that though students may perform well in tests and examinations, it does not necessarily mean good writing ability. Based on this view, these findings from the quantitative data show that over 61.22% of students who use social media mostly make use of WhatsApp while a minimum of just 2.0% (n = 1) make use of other social media Apps like Instagram the most. The analysis further reveals that social media users with 10%, 6% and 2% respectively lack the curiosity in the use of smartphones which to others, ‘it is distracting and time-consuming’. Also, worthy to note, is the descending order of the most used social media Apps as revealed through the cumulative percentage as follows (61.22%), followed by Facebook (20.44%) and Gmail (10.20%) respectively.

These Apps, accompanied by the persistent use of shorthand, could deprive students of the ability to be empowered with both reading and writing skills as well as their improved academic performance. According to Table 3 above, other Apps such as Twitter and Instagram are almost insignificant. This explains exactly the area(s) in which the students are more focused when using their phones.

Table 3. Most used social media App Frequencies and percentage of cases.

				Cumulative Percentage
		Frequency	Valid Percent
	Mostly used social media Apps (WhatsApp)	30	60.0%	61.22%
	Mostly used social media App (Facebook)	10	20.0%	20.41%
	Mostly used social media Apps (Gmail)	5	10.0%	10.20%
	Mostly used social media App (Twitter)	3	6.0%	6.12%
	Mostly used social media Apps (other: Instagram)	1	2.0%	2.04%
	Missing Variables	1	2.0%
Total		50	100.0%	99.99%

Challenges of academic writing from students perspective

In trying to determine what students find most difficult in their academic writing, results from WFGI reveal that spelling during the writing process is a serious challenge faced by students in the study. A participant during the WFGI specifically mentions that: ‘Spelling has been a problem to me because of my poor English background. So, using shorthand writing sometimes comes to my rescue as I shorten words to how we enunciate them’.

It logically follows that the constant use of shorthand is affecting students’ spelling as well as their writing ability. But most importantly, the non-English background of these students as defined by their origin is weak enough to influence their academic performance negatively. Among the other challenges identified through WFGI are:

• The inability to write chronologically and consistently

• The inability to reference correctly and

• The inability to structure one’s essay writing correctly

Additionally, during the WFGI a participant stated: ‘Following and respecting chronology has always been a problem for me as I end up putting my ideas in any order which hinders my overall performance’. Similarly, it was discovered that students find it difficult to line up their arguments following the required consecutive structure. As a result, important points are strewn throughout the essay. This closely links with empirical findings by Holm and Earl (2015) which reveal that essays, for example, require students to use and understand specific disciplinary conventions such as referencing of which they are usually incapable. All these are growing concerns as far as the technicality of writing an essay is concerned. The assumption in this scenario is that if students can perform well without following the above identified strategies in academic writing, then they would perform even much better when they can write chronologically, consistently and acknowledge the authors.

A critical analysis of the quantitative survey shows that the writing centre/reading lab offers a variety of services which are not fully utilised by students. The study reveals that many students visited the writing centre for assistance with academic writing related needs mostly at the final years of their studies. Interestingly as revealed in the findings, a cumulative percentage of over 63.4% of students who visited an academic writing centre are final year students, the majority of whom were compulsorily recommended by their lecturers (See Table 4) while a smaller percentage of 23.91 seek help from the writing centre during their first years. This is an indication that during the second year of their studies students become more comfortable and confident until they get to the final year where panic to complete the programme sets in.

Table 4. The period at which students seek help from the writing centre.

		Frequency	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
	2017 (1^st year)	11	22.0	23.91
	2018 (2^nd year)	6	12.0	13.04
	2019 (3^rd & 4^th year)	29	58.0	63.04
	missing variables	4	8.0	100.0
	Total	50	100.0

Regarding the services offered by the writing centre, results from the quantitative study show that students visit the writing centre with a variety of needs with a satisfaction level of over 85% with a frequency of n = 44. Based on these statistics, the highest number of students who visit the centre requested assistance on how to write an essay which among others includes writing in a formally accepted language. This is followed by the desire to know how to use references in academic writing. Lastly, the area that recorded the lowest number of students is the domain of research and proposal writing. This is an indication that students at the undergraduate level have very little concern over research writing until their final year where they are expected to do basic research. However, a frequency of n = 6 for those who feel very unsatisfied with the services provided as indicated in Table 5 below, is an indication that these students were not adequately oriented over the services offered by the centre. As such, they expected more than the centre could offer, such as language editing of assignments as indicated in Table 5.

Table 5. Satisfaction level of students who visited the writing centre.

		Frequency	Valid Percent
	Performance in the module did not change	2	33.3
	Hoped to have my assignment done	1	16.7
	Failed the assignment even after seeking help	1	16.7
	I expected a lot more than was offered e.g. to help in editing my work	2	33.3
	Total	6	100.0

From the foregoing, however, it could be deduced that there is dissimilarity regarding the reasons for the visit to the writing centre/reading laboratory by students from various Faculties as well as dissimilarity in the use of shorthand in the academic writing process. Amongst the variety of reasons that bring the students to the centre specifically involves the need to write an essay using a complete recommended referencing style, for instance, Harvard, APA, foot note, etc., as recommended by the different disciplines in the university and ensuring chronology and consistency in the academic writing process. Fortunately, most students often feel satisfied with the support they get in their academic writing which is also evident in their academic performance.

Limitations and recommendations

During this study the following setbacks were encountered in no particular order; the first was the issue of sample size. It was noticed that most of the students who visited the writing centre were first-year students who were struggling with their writing while those who felt competent enough never showed up unless when persuaded by the lecturer. This was, therefore, an indication that the sample size was not a true reflection of the population of the various faculties, but of students that visited the centre only.

Based on the relevance of academic writing in tertiary institutions towards developing young incoming students into the university, more effort should be made by especially university authorities on having a writing centre or reading lab. However, those which already have should stress the relevance by creating more awareness through advertisement as well as incorporating writing centres as part of the curricula. This would help students improve their writing ability and academic performance, being mindful of the fact that performing with distinctions does not necessarily mean quality writing ability. The assumption under such circumstances is that the student would perform even much better when they could write chronologically, consistently and with proper knowledge of referencing. Therefore, a broader study involving all students across the different faculties is recommended.

The second aspect is the issue of the time frame and the scope. The study is limited in terms of its time frame, as the effects of stenography on academic performance may change over time or be influenced by external factors. Also, the study only examined the impact of stenography on academic writing and did not consider other factors that could influence academic performance, such as reading comprehension or critical thinking skills.

As a recommendation, the Department of Basic and higher education can also stress the importance of stenography in the writing process as well as develop a curriculum based on the Gregg shorthand, whereby both students and teachers/lecturers would be able to use shorthand as an acceptable academic writing approach as it is the case in journalism, medicine and the courtrooms. This is vital at a time when learning, teaching as well as academic writing are evolving in the 4IR era. Also, the relevance of this recommendation is linked to Fink’s theory of Taxonomy of Significant Learning Experiences which acknowledges that there is always a lasting change that is significant to the student’s life.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the study analyses the problem by demonstrating the different forms of stenography writing, reasons for the use of stenography, the effects of the use of stenography in academic writing and performance, as well as the role of writing centres in a tertiary institution. There is always a prevailing gap between what is expected of a first and a final-year student by the lecturer/examiner in the writing process. This predominant situation often comes about because students are not getting the basic knowledge about academic writing during their first years in universities and other tertiary institutions of learning. Unfortunately, even with the availability of possible solutions like academic writing centres to enhance student writing abilities, they still do not make adequate use of the relevant and available services, except when persuaded by the lecturers. However, as much as stenography writing remains relevant in the academic setting (4IR era), in times of teaching and learning, students should beware of subject-specific expectations like the need to use an academically accepted writing style in formal writing processes. This is important because according to Hyland (2013, p. 53) ‘We are what we write, and we need to understand the distinctive ways our disciplines have of addressing and presenting arguments, as it is through language that academics and students conceptualise their subjects and argue their claims persuasively’.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the participating students who went the extra mile to ensure that the necessary focus group interviews took place under unusual circumstances like WhatsApp chat and video calls. We also acknowledge Dr Ufuoma Ejoke for her assistance in the data analysis process.

Disclosure statement

The authors have no financial or personal interest relating to this manuscript to disclose.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hennades T. Tabe

Hennades T. Tabe holds a PhD in Education Management/Leadership with over 10 years of experience in Higher education teaching and research supervision. Before his current position as a Post Doctoral Research Fellow with the University of Johannesburg, He served as a sub-contractor with the Department of Education in administering the Systemic Evaluation across provinces in South Africa. He was a contract lecturer and academic writing consultant respectively at the North-West University of South Africa for over seven years. He is a peer reviewer at different journals and organisations including the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education (CSSHE) and Perspectives in Education (PE). Moreover, He is a member of the South African Education Research Association (SAERA) and the Golden Key International Honours. His research area of interest includes Teaching and Learning at both Higher and secondary education with emphasis on teacher education and learner performance, School governance and administration.

Ellen K. Materechera

Dr Ellen K. Materechera has been working as a senior academic advisor and a writing centre coordinator at North-West University, South Africa. Her current research interest includes inclusive education, teaching and learning in higher education with a focus on student academic development.