Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers.

Abstract

The contribution of handwriting to learning to write was examined in an experimental training study involving beginning writers with and without an identified disability. First-grade children experiencing handwriting and writing difficulties participated in 27 fifteen-min sessions designed to improve the accuracy and fluency of their handwriting. In comparison to their peers in a contact control condition receiving instruction in phonological awareness, students in the handwriting condition made greater gains in handwriting as well as compositional fluency immediately following instruction and 6 months later, The effects of instruction were similar for students with and without an identified disability. These findings indicate that handwriting is causally related to writing and that explicit and supplemental handwriting instruction is an important element in preventing writing difficulties in the primary grades.Horace Greeley, the founder of the New Yorker, often wrote notes and letters that were difficult to decipher. After writing a letter indicating that he would be unavailable to make a solicited presentation, he received a reply, noting that it took some time to translate his response, but that his requested date, terms, and honorarium were acceptable (Hendrickson, 1994).Unfortunately, misinterpretations are not the only consequence of handwriting difficulties. For children, there are at least three additional unwanted results. First, poor penmanship may influence perceptions about a child's competence as a writer. When teachers or other adults are asked to evaluate two or more versions of a paper differing only in handwriting quality, neatly written papers are assigned higher marks for writing quality than papers of poorer legibiUty (e.g.

Characterization of motor control in handwriting difficulties in children with or without developmental coordination disorder

“…The velocity was much slower when writing a complex character than when writing a simple character (F [1,91] =129.81, p<0.001). The differences between the three groups were also significant in simple tasks (F [2,91] =3.62, p=0.031) and complex tasks (F [2,91] =3.12, p=0.049). Further- …”

“…The mean (SD) time constants of the HWD-DCD, HWD-nDCD, and comparison groups were 14.64 (7.92), 7.64 (5.11), and 6.18 (5.23) practice times, respectively. The group factor was found to have a significant effect on the time constant required to achieve automation (F [2,91] =15.52, p<0.001). The post-hoc tests revealed that the difference between the HWD-DCD and HWD-nDCD groups and between the HWD-DCD and comparison groups reached statistical significance (both p<0.001).…”

“…According to the repeated-measures two-way ANOVA, less force was used to write complex characters than simple characters (F [1,91] =23.27, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in axial pen force between the three groups (F [2,91] =1.47, p=0.236). However, there was interaction between the two factors, with changes in axial pen force during the transition from simple to complex character tasks differing between the groups (F [2,91] =4.07, p=0.02).…”

“…S l a n t more, the two factors interacted, with the groups showing different variations in stroke velocity in two kinds of tasks (F [2,91] =15.40, p<0.001; Table IV): in the simple character task, the stroke velocity was higher in the HWD-DCD group than in the comparison group (p=0.024); in the complex character task, however, it was much lower in the HWD-DCD group than in the comparison group (p=0.038).…”

“…1 Graham et al 2 proposed that handwriting is causally related to writing and that explicit and supplemental handwriting instruction is an important element in preventing writing difficulties in the primary grades.…”