Typewriters and Typing in Education
There was a lot of optimism in regards to the typewriter in education which is evident from the 1890s onward. In the early 1890’s William A. Mowry and Frank Palmer were already advocating using typewriters in secondary schools (Cothran, A., Mason, G. E., 1978). In 1897, Charles Burbank writes about the success that typewriters were already having in schools, so much so that he may be one of the first advocates for typewriters replacing handwriting in schools (Burbank, 1897). In The Typewriter in the Schools the previous sentiment is repeated with the strong encouragement to educators to “make at least a beginning in teaching the use of the writing machine, which is fast superseding the pen” (Observer, 1902).
The responses to the typewriter in education can be put into categories. These categories are gains in standardized test scores, reading enjoyment, writing enjoyment, writing output, writing mechanics, writing quality, and overall student engagement. Other than standardized testing, these categories are difficult to quantify. Administrators and school boards, like today, are difficult to convince with anecdotal evidence which definitely contributed to the relative absence of typewriters in classrooms throughout the 1900s.
In 1932 a large study was undertaken by Frank Freeman and Ben Wood with the support from the Typewriter Educational Research Bureau (Kalmbach, 1996). Altogether there were nearly 15,000 students who participated in the study (Cothran & Mason, 1978). The study focussed mainly on standardized test scores however there was a wealth of qualitative data that was gathered as well. The standardized tests showed that students who used typewriters gained an average of 7% in their classes over the students who did not use typewriters in school (Kalmbach, 1996). A 7% gain in test scores is statistically significant however the gain is not consistent from study to study with many studies showing no improvement. However, it also seems that no study shows students getting poorer scores (Kalmbach, 1996).
Freeman and Wood concluded their study with an open ended question for the teachers who used typewriters in the classroom. Their question was, “In what concrete ways does the child’s interest in school activities seem to be affected by the use of the typewriter in your classroom?” (Kalmbach, 1996, p. 62). The responses were 88% favorable at the end of the study with no unfavorable responses. Teachers commented on various qualities of the printed text as well as the effect on students. Change in students’ behaviour included students doing more reading, writing, and research when they were able to use typewriters. Shy students became less shy and students were generally motivated in all areas of schoolwork (Cothran & Mason, 1978).
Cothran and Mason (1978) summarize their article, which included information from nine different studies, including the Freeman and Wood study, by writing:
The responses to the typewriter in education can be put into categories. These categories are gains in standardized test scores, reading enjoyment, writing enjoyment, writing output, writing mechanics, writing quality, and overall student engagement. Other than standardized testing, these categories are difficult to quantify. Administrators and school boards, like today, are difficult to convince with anecdotal evidence which definitely contributed to the relative absence of typewriters in classrooms throughout the 1900s.
In 1932 a large study was undertaken by Frank Freeman and Ben Wood with the support from the Typewriter Educational Research Bureau (Kalmbach, 1996). Altogether there were nearly 15,000 students who participated in the study (Cothran & Mason, 1978). The study focussed mainly on standardized test scores however there was a wealth of qualitative data that was gathered as well. The standardized tests showed that students who used typewriters gained an average of 7% in their classes over the students who did not use typewriters in school (Kalmbach, 1996). A 7% gain in test scores is statistically significant however the gain is not consistent from study to study with many studies showing no improvement. However, it also seems that no study shows students getting poorer scores (Kalmbach, 1996).
Freeman and Wood concluded their study with an open ended question for the teachers who used typewriters in the classroom. Their question was, “In what concrete ways does the child’s interest in school activities seem to be affected by the use of the typewriter in your classroom?” (Kalmbach, 1996, p. 62). The responses were 88% favorable at the end of the study with no unfavorable responses. Teachers commented on various qualities of the printed text as well as the effect on students. Change in students’ behaviour included students doing more reading, writing, and research when they were able to use typewriters. Shy students became less shy and students were generally motivated in all areas of schoolwork (Cothran & Mason, 1978).
Cothran and Mason (1978) summarize their article, which included information from nine different studies, including the Freeman and Wood study, by writing:
Teachers have noted more creativity in their pupils' productions, increased pride in
their work, more concern for neatness, greater interest in school, better punctuation
and capitalization, higher rate of reading comprehension, gains in vocabulary
development, and an overall positive feeling about using the typewriter (p. 173).
Each article that is cited in this paper had overwhelmingly positive outlook about typewriters in education
whether from the early days in the late 19th century up to the 1990s. Unfortunately, a lack of concrete quantitative data meant that schools and school boards did not buy-in to typewriters and looking back it may be that typewriters did not fulfill their potential in education.
whether from the early days in the late 19th century up to the 1990s. Unfortunately, a lack of concrete quantitative data meant that schools and school boards did not buy-in to typewriters and looking back it may be that typewriters did not fulfill their potential in education.