Arabic Handwriting Vs. Keyboarding: Performance and Underlying Body Functions Among Elementary-School Students

ABSTRACT

gSchool-based occupational therapists (OTs) support students’ participation in academic activities, including handwriting and keyboarding, which are major basic academic skills. To this end, it is important that OTs understand what these activities entail. Yet, only a few studies compared keyboarding and handwriting performance of elementary school students and their underlying body functions; none related to the Arabic language. The aims of the current study were: (a) to examine the relationship between handwriting and keyboarding performance of typically developing elementary school students; and (b) to investigate whether these two tasks share common underlying body functions (linguistic, cognitive, and sensory-motor). Thirty-five 4^th-5^th-grade monolingual students, whose mother tongue is Arabic, were individually administered handwriting and keyboarding speed assessments and tests measuring reading, attention, and sensory-motor functions. Results showed a significant moderate correlation was found between handwriting and keyboarding speed. Reading speed and attention were correlated with both handwriting and keyboarding speed. In contrast, different sensory-motor skills were associated with each of the writing modes. These findings suggest that, assessing students’ reading, attention, and sensory-motor functions is important in order to understand students’ handwriting or keyboarding difficulties. Additionally, OTs should be aware of the different language-dependent keyboard layouts, which may affect students keyboarding performance.

KEYWORDS:

• Handwriting
• keyboarding
• typing
• reading
• elementary-school

Introduction

School-based occupational therapists support students’ participation in academic and nonacademic activities, including those performed on digital devices (e.g., online assignment completion, distance learning; American Occupational Therapy Association, 2020; Frolek Clark & Ponsolle-Mays, 2019). Within this role, occupational therapists assist students’ in acquiring handwriting (Caramia, Gill, Ohl, & Schelly, 2020) and keyboarding skills (Donica, Giroux, Kim, & Branson, 2021). These basic writing skills are vital for students’ ability to communicate and express their thoughts and knowledge, and consequently may affect their grades and self-esteem (Stevenson & Just, 2014). Furthermore, keyboarding is often suggested as an alternative writing mode for students with poor handwriting skills (Donica, Giroux, & Faust, 2018; McMaster & Roberts, 2016; Nightingale, Sumner, Prunty, & Barnett, 2022).

In fact, in the current digital age, keyboarding is becoming the main writing mode (Gong, Zhang, & Li, 2022; Wu & Chiang, 2022), including in elementary schools, where students are often expected to perform computer-based tests or write summaries (Donica, Giroux, & Faust, 2018). Therefore, it is important to understand the handwriting and keyboarding processes and the underlying body functions associated with these activities (Donica, Giroux, & Faust, 2018; Feder, Brossard Racine, & Majnemer, 2008; Foxworth, Hashey, & Sukhram, 2019). This understanding can assist educators and occupational therapists in deciding what is the preferred writing mode for each student, and provide necessary support for students with handwriting and keyboarding difficulties. Only a few studies have compared keyboarding and handwriting performance among elementary school students (Berninger, Abbott, Augsburger, & Garcia, 2009; Connelly, Gee, & Walsh, 2007) and their underlying functions (Berninger et al., 2006; Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004). Yet, most of these studies were conducted more than a decade ago, before computers and other digital means became common writing tools among school students, and none related to the Arabic language.

Handwriting versus Keyboarding Performance

According to the simple view of writing model (Berninger, 2000) the writing process consists of three components, one of which is transcription. Transcription is the process of transforming internal language representations into visible, external language (e.g., words, phrases, sentences) and includes spelling, handwriting and keyboarding. Hence handwriting and keyboarding are important for the written expression process. In fact, studies focusing on students’ writing in different languages and age levels, have reported that handwriting and keyboarding speed, which are the focus of this study, were moderately correlated (Connelly, Gee, & Walsh, 2007; Feng, Lindner, Ji, & Malatesha Joshi, 2019; Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004; Weintraub, Gilmour-Grill, & Weiss, 2010), suggesting that these activities may follow both shared and different processes.

The bio-psycho-social framework described in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-Children and Youth (World Health Organization, 2007), may assist in better understanding each of these writing modes. The ICF suggests that students’ performance and participation are affected by their underlying body functions and structures as well as environmental (contextual) and personal factors. Alongside, according to the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework, “Occupational therapy practitioners analyze the demands of an occupation or activity to understand the performance patterns, performance skills, and client factors that are required to perform it” (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2020, p. 20). These frameworks imply that considering the contextual factors and activity demands is important for understanding individuals’ performance, and specifically handwriting and keyboarding.

Furthermore, keyboarding demands may vary in different languages (i.e., a linguistic context). For example, keyboards, which are suitable for typing in English or other Germanic- or Latin-based languages, usually present one letter on each key, while when typing in Arabic or Hebrew, two or three letters are presented on each key (see Figure 1). Moreover, languages vary in the number of letters (e.g., 29 letters in Arabic, 22 letters in Hebrew and 26 letters in English). Both these facts may affect the visual load during keyboarding, especially among novice typists, who mainly rely on visual feedback while typing. Furthermore, in some languages (e.g., English or Arabic), typing some characters such as capital letters or certain letter-combinations requires pressing the “Shift” key simultaneously with another specific key, whereas in other languages (e.g., Hebrew), no Shift key is required for typing the different letters.

Figure 1. The QWERTY keyboard with English, Hebrew, and Arabic letters.

Thus, it appears that both the writing tool and the written or typed language factors may influence the writing process and consequently the writing performance. To date, studies comparing handwriting and keyboarding focused mostly on the English and Hebrew languages. Given the importance of the language context (Authors concealed), it is vital to expand the knowledge of handwriting and keyboarding in other languages such as Arabic. Moreover, the different demands of handwriting and keyboarding may affect the underlying body functions associated with these activities (Rosenberg-Adler & Weintraub, 2020).

Underlying Body Functions Related to Handwriting and Keyboarding Performance

Both theoretical models (e.g., Higashiyama, Takeda, Someya, Kuroiwa, & Tanaka, 2015) and research evidence (Berninger et al., 2006; Weigelt-Marom & Weintraub, 2018) indicate that keyboarding, as handwriting, requires the integration of linguistic, cognitive, and sensory-motor functions. However, it is unclear whether these functions are identical in both activities (see Table 1). Higashiyama, Takeda, Someya, Kuroiwa, and Tanaka (2015) proposed a model comparing handwriting and keyboarding. According to this model, the initial stages of performing these activities, which require linguistic and cognitive functions (i.e., phonological and orthographic long-term memory, semantic system, and phoneme-grapheme conversion) are similar. Support for this contention was demonstrated in studies showing that both handwriting and keyboarding speed were associated with linguistic factors (e.g., orthographic coding, rapid automatized naming, spelling) while writing in English (Berninger et al., 2006), in Hebrew (Rosenberg-Adler & Weintraub, 2020) and in Spanish (Jiménez & Hernández-Cabrera, 2019). These basic linguistic function are also required for reading (Frolek Clark, 2016), and in fact, various studies have shown a relationship between reading and handwriting speed (Bosga-Stork, Bosga, Ellis, & Meulenbroek, 2016; Salameh-Matar, Basal, & Weintraub, 2018).

Table 1. Underlying Body Functions Related to Handwriting and Keyboarding Performance×.

Body Functions	Handwriting	Keyboarding
Linguistic	Phonological and orthographic processing Semantic knowledge Phoneme-grapheme conversion	Phonological and orthographic processing Semantic knowledge Phoneme-grapheme conversion
Cognitive
Visual attention and shifting	Allocating visual attention to the written output on the paper	Visually scanning and selecting letters on the keyboard (unskilled typist) Shifting visual attention from the keyboard to the screen (unskilled typist)
Sensory-motor
Bilateral coordination	Coordination between the hand writing and the hand stabilizing the page	Coordination between the two hands while typing Pressing the “Shift” key and a letter key (e.g., for capital letters) in a sequential movement
Manual dexterity	Precise and coordinated movements of 3–4 fingers of one hand while grasping a pen/cil	Pressing the keys
Visual feedback	Relying on visual feedback for written output (novice handwriters)	Relying on visual feedback for finger placement and typed output (novice keyboarders)
Kinesthetic feedback	Relying on kinesthetic feedback for written output (automatic handwriters)	Relying on kinesthetic feedback for finger placement and typed output (automatic keyboarders)

Note: * (Higashiyama, Takeda, Someya, Kuroiwa, & Tanaka, 2015; Mangen, Andal, Oxborough, & Bronnick, 2015; Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004; Salameh-Matar, Basal, & Weintraub, 2018; Weintraub, Gilmour-Grill, & Weiss, 2010).

Higashiyama, Takeda, Someya, Kuroiwa, and Tanaka (2015) further proposed that the difference between handwriting and keyboarding begins at the stages of converting the allographs to motor programs. In handwriting, the motor program is specific to each allograph and is identical to its shape. However, in keyboarding, the motor programs guide the typists in navigating the keyboard and reaching the keys corresponding to the specific allographs (Feng, Lindner, Ji, & Malatesha Joshi, 2019; Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004). The difference between these two writing modes continues at the motor execution stage (Higashiyama, Takeda, Someya, Kuroiwa, & Tanaka, 2015; Mangen, Andal, Oxborough, & Bronnick, 2015). Keyboarding requires pressing the keys with specific fingers in sequential and rapid movements, whereas handwriting involves using precise coordinated movements of 3–4 fingers of one hand (Feder, Brossard Racine, & Majnemer, 2008; Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004).

Few studies compared the sensory-motor functions underlying handwriting and keyboarding performance (Berninger et al., 2006; Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004; Rosenberg-Adler & Weintraub, 2020; Weintraub, Gilmour-Grill, & Weiss, 2010). These studies supported the proposed model by Higashiyama, indicating that handwriting and keyboarding vary in their underlying sensory-motor skills (Higashiyama, Takeda, Someya, Kuroiwa, & Tanaka, 2015). Yet, no study on this topic was found that related to the Arabic language.

Finally, both handwriting and keyboarding require cognitive skills such as attention. One study (Berninger et al., 2006) found that attention functions (inhibition and switching), as measured by the Color Word Form Test (i.e., Stroop, in which students were expected to inhibit reactions to irrelevant information while focusing on relevant information and switching attention when necessary), correlated significantly with handwriting performance and with some of the keyboarding outcomes in 3^rd and 5^th grades. However, clearly, further examination of the relationship between handwriting and keyboarding with attention functions is required.

Study Purpose

From the review above it appears that only a few studies have compared keyboarding and handwriting performance among elementary school students and their underlying body functions. Yet, none of addressed the Arabic language, which presents a unique linguistic context, both in terms of the language features and the keyboard layout. The purposes of the current study were: (a) To examine the relationship between Arabic handwriting and keyboarding performance of typical elementary school students; and (b) to investigate whether these two activities share common underlying functions (linguistic, cognitive, and sensory-motor). Our expected results were that handwriting and keyboarding speed will significantly correlate, but each will have both similar and different underlying body functions.

Method

Study Design and Participants

This study followed a cross-sectional, correlational design (Taylor, 2017). The sample included thirty five 4^th-5^th grade students with no known disorders. We selected this age group because at this stage, students’ handwriting acquisition is expected to reach the level of automaticity (Thibon, Gerber, & Kandel, 2018). The required sample size was calculated using G*power software, version 3.1.9.7 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). With an expected effect size of .43, for correlation between handwriting and keyboarding speed based on a meta-analysis by Feng, Lindner, Ji, and Malatesha Joshi (2019), a significance level of .05 and power of 0.8, the sample size required was 31 students. The monolingual students whose mother tongue was Arabic were recruited from four general elementary schools in the northern region of Israel. The students who participated in the study met the following criteria: (a) had no neurological or physical disabilities that interfered with typing or handwriting (according to parents’ reports); (b) did not receive special education services; (c) their score in the Coloured Progressive Matrices test (CPM; Raven, Styles, & Raven, 1998) was within the normal range (above the 10^th percentile); and (d) their score in the Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2^nd Edition (MABC-2; Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007) was within the normal range (above the 15^th percentile).

Measures

Eligibility and Underlying Body Functions Measures

Developmental Background Questionnaire for Parents (Authors concealed)

This questionnaire was developed for the present study to collect data from parents about their children’s developmental background, a diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders and vision, hearing or other impairments which may affect handwriting and keyboarding performance.

Students Background Questionnaire in Arabic (Authors concealed)

This self-report questionnaire was developed to collect students’ information regarding the students’ use of the computer, tablet, smartphone, and typing.

Coloured Progressive Matrices Test (CPM; Raven, Styles, & Raven, 1998)

The purpose of CPM is to evaluate non-verbal intelligence among children 5–11-years-old. It includes three sets, each composed of 12 items. Each set measures different cognitive abilities with increasing difficulty level. Each item is scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0). The total raw score is converted into percentiles. The authors report high internal consistency (α = .80–.94) and test-retest reliability (r = .82, p < .01). In this study, the CPM was used to exclude children with intellectual impairments.

Diagnostic Reading Test in Arabic for Elementary School Students, 2^nd−6^th grade (Taha, 2009)

In this test, students are asked to read aloud a text that includes 100 vowelized words. Reading performance is scored for speed (total reading time in seconds) and accuracy (percentage of correctly read words). Content validity was established based on teachers (who served as a judge panel) who concluded that the content and complexity of the text are appropriate for this age group. In this study, we focused on the reading speed measure.

Finger Succession (FS; Berninger & Rutberg, 1992; Denckla, 1973)

This task examines kinesthetic ability. Students are asked to hold both hands out of peripheral vision, and touch their thumb with each of their fingers in a sequential order (i.e., a cycle), as fast as possible. Scoring is based on the time (in seconds) it takes students to complete five correctly performed cycles in their dominant hand.

The Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2^nd Edition (MABC-2; Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007)

The purpose of the MABC-2 is to identify and describe impairments in motor performance of 3–16-years-old children. It includes eight fine and gross motor tasks grouped into three components: Manual Dexterity (MD), Aiming and Catching (AC), and Balance (BL). Each component is scored separately in addition to the total score. Raw scores are converted to standard and percentiles scores. Total scores that fall at or above the 16^th percentile are regarded as unlikely to have a movement difficulty. The MABC-2 has good test-retest reliability for components scores (MD: r = .77; AC: r = .84; BL: r = .73; all ps < .05) and total test scores (r = .80, p < .05; Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007). In this study the MABC-2 was used both to exclude students with motor difficulties, and as a predictor of handwriting and keyboarding skills.

The Children’s Color Trails Test (CCTT; Llorente, Williams, Satz, & D’Elia, 2003)

The CCTT is a standardized test, designed to examine sustained visual attention among 8–16-years-old children and adolescents. It consists of two subtests: The CCTT-1 and CCTT-2. In this study, we only used the CCTT-2 which is more complex. The CCTT-2 consists of two sets of encircled numbers (1–15), each printed in different colors. Students are asked to connect the numbers in ascending order, alternating between the colors. Performance was based on the standard score of the completion time. The CCTT-2 was found to have good discriminant validity (e.g., differentiated between children with and without attention deficits; Juneja et al., 2019), as well as construct and concurrent validity (Llorente, Williams, Satz, & D’Elia, 2003). The completion time scores were also found to have moderate test-retest reliability (r = .46–.68) in a sample of children with ADHD (Llorente et al., 2009).

Handwriting and Keyboarding Performance Measures

Arabic Handwriting Assessment (A‑HAT; Salameh-Matar, Basal, Nashef-Tali, & Weintraub, 2010).

The A-HAT is a standardized test that evaluates Arabic handwriting of elementary school students. It includes a paragraph copying task and writing to dictation task. Texts are scored for writing speed (i.e., number of characters, letters, vowel marks, and punctuation marks written per minute) and legibility (i.e., percent of legible words). In this study, we used the copying task (3 min in 4^th grade and 5 min in 5^th grade) and focused on the handwriting speed measure. The A-HAT has a high inter-rater reliability for speed (r = .99, p < .001; Salameh-Matar, Basal, Nashef-Tali, & Weintraub, 2016).

Arabic Keyboarding Assessment (A-KBAT; Authors concealed).

TheA-KBATisa standardized test that evaluates Arabic keyboarding performance of students in 4^th and 5^th grades. It includes a 5-min copying task and 3-min writing to dictation task. The texts in the A-KBAT are the same as in the A-HAT. Students are tested on a 14-inch laptop using Microsoft® Word software and QWERTY keyboard. The typed text is scored for speed and accuracy. Speed is defined as the number of characters (i.e., letters, spaces, punctuation marks, and “Enter” keystrokes) typed per minute, determined by using the “Character count” application of the Microsoft Word software. Accuracy is calculated as the percentage of characters typed accurately compared to the original text. In this study, we used the copying task and focused on the keyboarding speed measure. The A-KBAT has acceptable construct validity; speed and accuracy were significantly higher in 5^th- compared to 4^th-grade students (Authors concealed).

Procedure

Ethical approval was obtained from the University’s (name concealed) ethics review board committee and the Ministry of Education of Israel. After receiving consent from four school administrators to participate in the study, parents of all 4^th and 5^th-grade students in these schools received a letter describing the aims and procedure of the study. The parents were asked to sign an informed consent form and fill out the Developmental Background Questionnaire. Students whose parents consented, and they themselves assented to participate in the study, were individually administered the test battery by a certified experienced school based occupational therapists (first author) in two sessions, 1–3 weeks apart. The texts in the A-HAT and the A-KBAT are the same. Therefore, half of the participants were administered the A-HAT at the first session, and the A-KBAT at the second. For the other half, these tests were administered in the reverse order.

Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 25.0). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study sample and the participants’ performance. We tested the data for normal distribution using a one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Results showed that the only measures that did not distribute normally were Finger Succession, total MABC-2 and its two other components. Therefore, data for these measures were analyzed using nonparametric analyses. Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients were used to examine associations between handwriting and keyboarding speed and between each of them and the underlying body functions. Finally, multiple linear regressions were conducted to examine the contribution of the underlying body functions to handwriting and keyboarding speed. Statistical significance was set at p < .05.

Results

The sample consisted of 35 students, with a mean age of 10.23 (SD = 0.66), of whom 16 (45.7%) were males; 34 (97.1%) were right-handed. All students reported having a computer at home and 23 (65.7%) also had a tablet. Thirty-two (91.4%) used the computer or tablet for writing assignments. None of the students learned touch-typing.

Correlations Between Keyboarding and Handwriting Speed and Underlying Functions

First, we examined the correlation between keyboarding and handwriting speed (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics), we found a moderate-significant positive correlation (r = .67, p < .001). Next, we examined the correlations between the underlying body functions (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics) and keyboarding and handwriting speed. As shown in Table 3, as hypothesized both similar and different underlying functions were associated with handwriting and keyboarding. The CCTT-2 (measuring attention) and reading speed significantly correlated with both keyboarding and handwriting speed. By contrast, the Finger Succession task (measuring kinesthetic ability) was associated only with keyboarding speed. Regarding the MABC-2 scores, correlations were inconsistent; the Total and Balance scores were significantly correlated with keyboarding speed, whereas the Manual Dexterity was correlated only with handwriting speed. The Aiming and Catching component scores did not correlate with either keyboarding or handwriting speed.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables (N = 35).

Measure	M	SD	Mdn	IQR
Keyboarding speeda	35.36	12.45	32.80	16
Handwriting speeda	52.52	11.55	51.33	13.67
Reading speedb	91.17	25.09	90	46
CCTT-2c	93.83	11.72	97	9
Finger Succession	12	6.35	10	4
MABC-2d
Total	9.66	2.27	9	3
Manual Dexterity	9.60	2.29	9	3
Aiming & Catching	10.77	2.17	11	3
Balance	9.09	1.93	9	2

Note. CCTT-2 = The Children’s Color Trails Test-2; MABC-2 = The Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd Edition. a Characters per minute (higher scores indicate higher speed). b Total reading time in seconds. c Standard score of the completion time. d Standard score.

Table 3. Correlations between Handwriting and Keyboarding Speed and Underlying Functions (N = 35).

	Keyboarding speed	Handwriting speed
Reading speed a	−.34*	−.58**
CCTT-2a	.32*	.38*
Finger Succsesiona	−.40**	−.28
MABC-2
Total a	.30*	.27
Manual Dexterity a	.08	.35*
Aiming & Catching b	.18	.02
Balance a	.28*	.09

Note. CCTT-2 = The Children’s Color Trails Test-2; MABC-2 = The Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd Edition. a Spearman correlation; ^bPearson correlation. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Predicting Keyboarding and Handwriting Speed

Separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the contribution of the underlying functions to keyboarding and to handwriting speed (see Table 4). First, we examined multicollinearity among the underlying (predicting) variables. Multicollinearity occurs when the multiple linear regression analysis includes predicting (explanatory) variables that are not independent from each other, but rather, are highly correlated not only with the dependent variable but also among themselves, leading to incorrect results of regression analyses. Hence, only one of these variables should be included in the regression model (Shrestha, 2020). Multicollinearity was found only between the MABC-2 Total score and Balance component, which impacts the total MABC-2 score. Thus, in the regression model we included only the Total score.

Table 4. Multiple Regressions Analyses for Predicting Keyboarding and Handwriting Speed (N = 35).

Variable	B	SE B	β	t	Adjusted R^2	F(df)
Keyboarding speed
CCTT-2	−0.102	0.217	−.096	−0.469
Reading speed	−0.193	0.081	−.389	−2.392*
Finger Succession	−0.728	0.356	−.371	−2.045*
MABC-2: Total score	0.720	0.911	.132	0.791
Final model					.216	3.347(4,34)*
Handwriting speed
CCTT-2	0.162	0.153	.164	1.058
Reading speed	−0.217	0.067	−.472	−3.222*
MABC-2: Manual Dexterity	1.198	0.738	.238	1.622
Final model					.359	7.339(3,34) **

Note. CCTT-2 = The Children’s Color Trails Test-2; MABC-2 = The Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd Edition. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Furthermore, only the underlying functions that were significantly correlated with handwriting and keyboarding speed (Table 3) were entered into the regression model. The first model, predicting keyboarding speed, included the CCTT-2, reading speed, Finger Succession, and the M-ABC-2 Total score. Together, these variables explained 21.6% (p < .05) of the variance (adjusted R²) in the keyboarding speed. However, only reading speed and the Finger Succession test uniquely and significantly contributed to the prediction of keyboarding speed. The second model, predicting handwriting speed, included the CCTT-2, reading speed and the Manual Dexterity subtest of the MABC-2. Together, these variables explained 35.9% of the variance (p < .05). However, only the reading speed had a unique significant contribution.

Discussion

Handwriting and keyboarding are two commonly used writing modes by school students. In this study, we examined the relationship between handwriting and keyboarding performance in Arabic among elementary school students. We further examined whether these two writing modes shared common underlying body functions (linguistic, cognitive, and sensory-motor). As far as we know, this is the first studies that compared these two writing modes in the context of the Arabic language.

The results of this study showed a significant moderate correlation between handwriting and keyboarding speed. These results are consistent with the findings of a meta-analysis conducted by Feng, Lindner, Ji, and Malatesha Joshi (2019) that also showed a significant moderate correlation between handwriting and keyboarding speed. This meta-analysis included studies conducted in the English (Connelly, Gee, & Walsh, 2007; Rogers & Case-Smith, 2002) and Hebrew (Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004; Weintraub, Gilmour-Grill, & Weiss, 2010) languages. These results suggest that students with lower handwriting speed also have lower keyboarding speed, raising the question of whether keyboarding can serve as an alternative writing mode for students struggling with handwriting?

To further explore this question, we investigated whether handwriting and keyboarding share similar underlying body functions. The study results indicated that both similar and different underlying body functions were associated with handwriting and keyboarding. As expected, reading speed was significantly correlated with both keyboarding and handwriting speed, and uniquely and significantly contributed to the prediction of each of them. These results are consistent with the assertion that both handwriting and keyboarding share linguistic functions at the initial stages, as proposed in the model presented by Higashiyama, Takeda, Someya, Kuroiwa, and Tanaka (2015), and supported by studies conducted in various languages with respect to handwriting (Berninger et al., 2006; Jiménez & Hernández-Cabrera, 2019; Khoury-Metanis, Asadi, & Khateb, 2018; Rosenberg-Adler & Weintraub, 2020; Salameh-Matar, Basal, & Weintraub, 2018) and keyboarding (Berninger et al., 2006; Jiménez & Hernandez‑Cabrera, 2019; Pinet, Ziegler, & Alario, 2016; Rosenberg-Adler & Weintraub, 2020).

Additionally, visual attention (as measured by the CCTT-2) was found to be significantly correlated with both keyboarding and handwriting speed. This finding coincides with the report by Berninger et al. (2006) that inhibition and attention switching correlated significantly with handwriting and keyboarding measures in 3^rd and 5^th grade students. This finding may not be surprising because in both writing modes, students copied a text, which requires them to focus their visual attention on the text, then, shift their focus to the paper or keyboard to reproduce it, and finally, shift their vision back to the text. Hence, students who were able to shift their visual attention more quickly were able to produce more text. However, as data on this topic is limited, further studies are warranted.

Finally, according to the model of Higashiyama, Takeda, Someya, Kuroiwa, and Tanaka (2015), the difference between handwriting and keyboarding begins at the stages of converting the allographs to motor programs and continues at the motor execution stage. Our findings support this postulation, showing that different sensory-motor skills were associated with handwriting but not with keyboarding speed, and visa-versa. For example, the Finger Succession task (measuring kinesthetic ability) and the Total and Balance scores of MABC-2 were associated only with keyboarding speed. In contrast, only the Manual Dexterity scores (of the MABC-2) correlated with handwriting speed. Previous studies reported similar results (Preminger, Weiss, & Weintraub, 2004; Rosenberg-Adler & Weintraub, 2020; Weintraub, Gilmour-Grill, & Weiss, 2010), showing that handwriting and keyboarding activities vary in underlying sensory-motor functions. Surprisingly, the Finger Succession task did not correlate with the handwriting speed, contrary to what was reported in previous studies (Berninger & Rutberg, 1992; Berninger et al., 2006). A possible explanation for the different results in our and Berninger et al.“s findings is that in their studies, students were instructed to write as fast as possible, (as in the Finger Succession test) while in our study, they were instructed to write in their usual pace. This may have increased the handwriting speed in the former studies;” decreasing variability in writing speed and increasing the correlation between the tasks. With respect to the distinct correlation patterns between handwriting versus keyboarding and the two fine-motor scores (i.e., Manual dexterity and Finger Succession), a possible explanation could be attributed to the specific demands of each of the writing mode. Keyboarding entails a sequential pressing of keys with a specific finger, akin to the requirements in the Finger Succession task. In contrast, handwriting involves the coordinated movement of several fingers while holding the pen/pencil, requiring similar abilities as those assessed by the Manual Dexterity tasks of the MABC-2 (Rosenberg-Adler & Weintraub, 2020).

Limitations and Future Research

As this study is one of the first that focused on Arabic keyboarding, with a relatively small sample size, the results should be treated with caution. Certain limitations of this study could be addressed in future research. This study should be replicated with a larger sample size and among students at different stages of handwriting and keyboarding acquisition, while using additional tasks such as writing to dictation. In addition, it is vital to determine whether similar results would also be found among students with handwriting difficulties, such as students with developmental coordination disorder.

Conclusions and Implications for Practice

The results of this study demonstrated that Arabic handwriting and keyboarding speed are associated, and both writing modes require reading, attention, and sensory-motor functions. These findings, which are similar to previous studies relating to other languages (e.g., English, Hebrew), suggest that the similarity of handwriting and keyboarding and the underlying body functions associated with each of these writing modes are mostly not language dependent. However, clinicians should be aware of the different linguistic demands both with respect to their unique features and the keyboarding layout, which may affect students keyboarding performance (Authors concealed).

Additionally, the relatively high correlations found between handwriting and keyboarding speed, as well as the shared underlying body functions, suggest that elementary school students with slow handwriting speed may be slow keyboarders. Therefore, using keyboarding as an alternative writing mode may not necessarily be effective, especially if students’ slow handwriting is due to poor reading, which is shared by both writing modes. However, if handwriting difficulties are due to poor sensory-motor functions, keyboarding may be a promising alternative writing mode because the sensory-motor functions associated with handwriting and keyboarding may differ. Therefore, assessing students’ reading, attention, and sensory-motor functions is important, when trying to understand students’ handwriting or keyboarding difficulties, and may help clinicians and educators provide the best intervention and instruction for students.

Key Messages

• The similarity and differences in handwriting and keyboarding and associated underlying functions, suggest that keyboarding may not be a suitable accommodation for all students with handwriting difficulties. Thus, school-based occupational therapists should personalize their decisions when recommending accommodations for students with handwriting difficulties.

• Keyboard layouts vary for different languages, which may affect keyboarding performance. Hence, when assessing keyboarding performance, occupational therapists should consider contextual factors such as students’ writing language and keyboard layouts.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the schools’ principals, teachers, students and parents for their time and cooperation in collecting the data.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The authors reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.