Handwriting instruction in elementary schools: Revisited!

Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention

ISSN: 1941-1243 (Print) 1941-1251 (Online) Journal homepage:

Handwriting instruction in elementary schools: Revisited!

Asha Asher & Joanne Estes

To cite this article: Asha Asher & Joanne Estes (2016) Handwriting instruction in elementary schools: Revisited!, Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 9:4, 353-365, DOI: 10.1080/19411243.2016.1239560 To link to this article:

Published online: 07 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 191

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of St Augusitne]

Date: 12 September 2017, At: 16:27

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, SCHOOLS, & EARLY INTERVENTION 2016, VOL. 9, NO. 4, 353?365

Handwriting instruction in elementary schools: Revisited!

Asha Asher, MA (OTR/L), SCSS, FAOTA, M Eda,* and Joanne Estes, PhD, OTR/Lb

aSycamore Community Schools, Cincinnati, Ohio; bDepartment of Occupational Therapy, College of Professional Sciences, Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio

ABSTRACT

Handwriting is an essential literacy and communication skill developed through a variety of instructional methods in elementary school. This study explored the consistency in handwriting instruction across grade levels in a Midwest public school district 15 years after the school initially implemented a uniform handwriting program. Additionally, the influence of the Common Core State Standards and Response to Intervention initiatives on handwriting instruction was reviewed. Participants included classroom teachers and personnel impacting handwriting instruction at the elementary schools. Data were collected using an electronic survey (n = 40) and individual, semi-structured interviews (n = 12). Survey results indicated that while most teachers followed the established guidelines, 24% still used other methods to teach handwriting. Interview themes described complexities of handwriting instruction, plenty of resources, and keeping up with changes. Advocacy for structured handwriting instruction, adequate practice, and application of handwriting during literacy activities continues to be a critical task for school-based occupational therapists.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 10 July 2016 Accepted 19 September 2016

KEYWORDS General education; handwriting; occupational therapy

Downloaded by [University of St Augusitne] at 16:27 12 September 2017

Handwriting instruction in elementary schools

Despite widespread use of technology, handwriting remains an essential literacy skill taught in elementary schools (McMaster & Roberts, 2016). Evidence emphasizes the importance of handwriting as it impacts content planning, text generation, and reading (Berninger, 2012) and critical thinking (Peverly, 2012). Within individual classrooms, teachers use a variety of handwriting instruction techniques, including various commercial programs, tools, and other materials. Additionally, two recent movements in education, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010) and Response to Intervention (RtI) (The National Center for Learning Disabilities, n.d.) may impact handwriting instruction. These factors may diminish the consistency of handwriting instruction in elementary schools that is necessary for effective use of handwriting as a literacy tool in the higher grades (Asher, 2006). This follow-up study reviewed the consistency of handwriting instruction in one Midwestern school district 15 years after the district implemented uniform handwriting instruction; it also explored how initiatives such as CCSS and RtI impact handwriting instruction in that district.

CONTACT Asha Asher avasher@ 1583 Franklin Avenue, Redlands, CA 92373. *The current affiliation of Asha Asher is Private Practice, Redlands, California. ? 2016 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [University of St Augusitne] at 16:27 12 September 2017

354

A. ASHER AND J. ESTES

Literature review

Handwriting techniques, tools, and programs

Students receive handwriting instruction in the early school years through the third grade and beyond (Schwellnus, Cameron, & Carnahan, 2012). Motor learning theory (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2012) can guide handwriting instruction in the classroom as the foundation of handwriting is built on motor movements (Bara & Gentaz, 2011). Results of a comprehensive meta-analysis on handwriting instruction showed that teaching handwriting and individualizing handwriting instruction enhanced legibility and fluency of student handwriting (Santangelo & Graham, 2015). Students benefit from consistent instruction and adequate practice when learning the motor skill of forming letters (Asher, 2006; Salls, Benson, Hansen, Cole, & Pielielek, 2013; Schwellnus et al., 2012a). Depending on the student's age, a cognitive focus (use of self-correction and cognitive strategies) or a sensorimotor focus (use of enhanced kinesthetic, tactile, auditory feedback) while practicing letter formations could guide the practice (Hoy, Egan, & Feder, 2011).

Teachers use and adapt a variety of techniques and materials for handwriting instruction in the classroom (Graham et al., 2008) leading to inconsistencies in instruction. For example, some teachers instructed students on how to grasp a pencil (Graham et al., 2008) while others did not (Temur, 2011). Yet, the information from research is also inconsistent. Some researchers found that proficient and nonproficient handwriters differed significantly in biomechanical ergonomic factors such as body positioning and consistency of pencil grasp (Rosenblum, Goldstand, & Parush, 2006), while others found that types of grasp or size and shape of writing tools did not affect students' pencil control (Schwellnus, et al., 2012b). Several commercially prepared handwriting programs are available for handwriting instruction including Handwriting Without Tears (HWT), Loops and Other Groups, and Zaner-Bloser. However, research does not yet support the superiority of one particular program over all others in developing legible handwriting (Feder, Brossard Racine, & Majnemer, 2008; Shimel, Candler, & Neveille-Smith, 2009).

Common Core State Standards

The CCSS provides a general framework to prepare students for higher education. The CCSS briefly mentions handwriting instruction as a necessity for curricula, however cursive writing is not specifically included. Therefore, some school districts have stopped teaching cursive while others continue to teach it (Hanover Research, 2012). Lack of specific direction on teaching handwriting in the CCSS could further add to the inconsistencies in handwriting instruction found by Asher (2006).

Response to intervention

RtI is an early intervening service provided under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2004 (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2004) for students who are not identified for special education services but whose learning is affected by behavior and/or academics issues (American Occupational Therapy Association [AOTA], 2012). Services may be directed toward systems, classrooms, or students and may include such supports as universal screenings, curricular modifications, and professional development provided to school staff. In a recent

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, SCHOOLS, & EARLY INTERVENTION

355

survey, the majority occupational therapist (OT) respondents reported participating in RtI through problem solving, coaching, and one-to-one interventions; however, lack of time and personnel limits occupational therapists' participation (Cahill, McGuire, Krumdick, & Lee, 2014).

Downloaded by [University of St Augusitne] at 16:27 12 September 2017

Rationale

The study was carried out in one Midwestern school district, which was invested in providing ideal handwriting instruction. After comparing current handwriting instruction practice with recommendations from research, the school district had aligned handwriting instruction (Asher, 2006) from kindergarten through grade six to enable students to build on the handwriting competencies developed in the earlier grades. The district incorporated the philosophical beliefs and research-based evidence from the fields of education and occupational therapy to draw up a handwriting curriculum with specific objectives at each grade level within the language arts curriculum. A commercially available program that supported this curriculum was selected by consensus. Application of this program was evaluated 1 year after implementation and again after 5 years. Additional training was provided to new teachers as needed, to ensure that they adhered to the given guidelines. Now, 15 years after initial implementation, this study reevaluated their handwriting instruction to determine the consistency of its application. The aims of this study were to (a) explore the consistency of handwriting instruction in a Midwest public school district and (b) explore how educational initiatives such as the CCSS and RtI impact handwriting instruction practices.

Methods and procedures

Research design

A mixed methods design including descriptive surveys and individual semistructured interviews was employed. The Midwestern school district granted permission to conduct the study and the host university's institutional review board approved the study. Survey participants read a consent form and checked a box indicating their consent to participate in order to access the electronic survey, and interview participants signed an informed consent form prior to their interviews.

Participants

Using purposive sampling (Kielhofner, 2006), 151 educational personnel from the school district were invited to participate in the study. Kindergarten through sixth grade classroom teachers were invited to complete surveys. These teachers, the school principals, and the assistant director of Academic Affairs were invited to be interviewed. The latter two were invited because they influence the philosophy of handwriting instruction in the district.

Procedures and data collection

Four graduate occupational therapy students from a Midwestern university and their faculty advisor collaborated with an occupational therapist from the school district to design and

356

A. ASHER AND J. ESTES

implement the study. The occupational therapist sent a presurvey email introducing the study and 1 week later sent an email to the same individuals that included a link to the survey in Survey Monkey. She sent reminder emails 7- and 10-days later and the survey was open for 1 month. The presurvey email sent to classroom teachers invited them to participate in an interview with participants being the first teachers who volunteered from each grade. A separate interview email invitation was sent to the other personnel. Interviews were conducted by two of the graduate students and lasted 30 minutes on average.

Downloaded by [University of St Augusitne] at 16:27 12 September 2017

Instruments and data analysis

The survey instrument was adapted from the Asher (2006) study to add questions related to CCSS and RtI. Three forms of the survey were designed for specific grade levels and administered electronically. The three versions included 14 to 18 open- and closed-ended questions asking about grade-specific handwriting instruction practices. Each also asked how the CCSS impacts handwriting instruction along with supports provided to students under the RtI initiative.

The 10?13 question semi-structured interview guides were tailored to participants' job titles. Classroom teachers talked about handwriting instruction practices; intervention and special education teachers, about their roles in handwriting instruction, materials they use, and intervention strategies for students with poor handwriting; and principals and the assistant director of Academic Affairs talked about their roles and opinions as related to handwriting instruction. All were asked about how the CCSS and RtI influence handwriting instruction and how occupational therapy practitioners are involved with handwriting instruction in the classroom.

SurveyMonkey calculated frequency counts for closed-ended questions and the graduate students tallied and reported as frequency counts the responses for open-ended questions. The interview data were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis procedures (Elo & Kyngas, 2008) that began with transcribing the interview audio recordings verbatim, reading the transcripts, and defining initial meaning units (i.e., words and phrases) for coding purposes (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Transcripts were coded using HyperRESEARCH, a code-and-retrieval computer software program. The students wrote descriptive memos for the code words, assigned codes to categories, and wrote analytic memos for the categories that were then reduced to three themes (Elo & Kyngas, 2008).

The authors employed several strategies to enhance trustworthiness (Krefting, 1991). The faculty advisor promoted credibility through expert review of all research-related activities (Krefting, 1991). Researchers further strengthened credibility through triangulation of data and by recording reflexive entries in a field journal (Krefting, 1991). Recording an audit trail log of research activities and working as a team enhanced dependability (Krefting, 1991).

Results

Participants and survey results

Forty teachers returned surveys, for a 26.49% response rate. The majority (n = 34) were women and their teaching experience averaged 17.9 years and ranged from 1 to 39 years. Duration in current position averaged 10.8 years and ranged from 1 to 35 years. Twelve

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, SCHOOLS, & EARLY INTERVENTION

357

female employees were interviewed, including seven classroom teachers, two principals, one special education teacher, one intervention specialist, and one assistant director of Academic Affairs. Interview participants' years of experience averaged 23.4 years and ranged from 7 to 40 years. See Table 1 for participants' professional experience and degrees. See Table 2 and Table 3 for survey results.

Downloaded by [University of St Augusitne] at 16:27 12 September 2017

Interview results

Three themes emerged from data analysis procedures. The first theme, Complexities of handwriting instruction, explains dimensions of variations in instructional methods. The second theme, Plenty of resources, describes the array of resources available to teachers. The last theme, Keeping up with changes, relates to changing expectations for handwriting instruction.

Complexities of handwriting instruction Participants described a developmental progress in handwriting instruction beginning with activities to develop fine motor coordination in the early years. Teachers evaluate students' handwriting through informal observation and collection of samples that serve as formative data of student progression. They use a variety of instructional approaches including graded materials, teaching letters in specific order, and focusing instruction on details--for example, correct grasp, spacing, and manuscript versus cursive. They also employ creative strategies such as writing in different planes, writing in shaving cream, or using technology such as white boards and tablets.

Plenty of resources Teachers have a range of resources available when students struggle with handwriting. They use individualized instruction, personalized tools, extra practice, and collaboration with parents as initial strategies. Generally, they rarely initiate the RtI process for

Table 1. Participants' professional characteristics.

Survey

n

Respondents

40

Highest degree earned

Master's degree

31

Bachelor's degree

9

Grade taught

K?2

20

3?4

6

5?6

14

Specialty area

Elementary education

15

Special education

11

PreK?3

4

Mathematics, science

3

ESOL, Montessori

2

4?5 endorsement

1

Administration

Curriculum design

Unknown

4

%

78 22

50 15 35

37.5 27.5 10 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download