Print‐script as Initial Handwriting Style I: effects on the development of handwriting

Karlsdóttir, Ragnheiður

doi:10.1080/0031383960400204

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In these cases, pre-intervention performance of control and intervention students was assumed to be equivalent, due to the randomization process.For some quasi-experiments, it was necessary to estimate the post-test ES from covariate-adjusted post-test means. In a few instances (e.g., Karlsdottir 1996b), an ES had to be calculated separately for both pretest and post-test, as the pretest and post-test HW measures were not identical. An adjusted ES was then obtained by subtracting pretest ES from post-test High quality design True random experiment (i.e., random assignment of individual participants to conditions or random assignment of classes/schools to conditions and correct unit of analysis)…”

Section: Calculating Effect Sizesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Handwriting Instruction

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there are many ways to author text today, writing with paper and pen (or pencil) is still quite common at home and work, and predominates writing at school. Because handwriting can bias readers' judgments about the ideas in a text and impact other writing processes, like planning and text generation, it is important to ensure students develop legible and fluent handwriting. This meta-analysis examined true-and quasi-experimental intervention studies conducted with K-12 students to determine if teaching handwriting enhanced legibility and fluency and resulted in better writing performance. When compared to no instruction or non-handwriting instructional conditions, teaching handwriting resulted in statistically greater legibility (ES=0.59) and fluency (ES=0.63). Motor instruction did not produce better handwriting skills (ES=0.10 for legibility and −0.07 for fluency), but individualizing handwriting instruction (ES=0.69) and teaching handwriting via technology (ES= 0.85) resulted in statistically significant improvements in legibility. Finally, handwriting instruction produced statistically significant gains in the quality (ES=0.84), length (ES= 1.33), and fluency of students' writing (ES=0.48). The findings from this meta-analysis provide support for one of the assumptions underlying the Simple View of Writing (Berninger et al., Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291-304, 2002): text transcription skills are an important ingredient in writing and writing development.

show abstract

Section: Calculating Effect Sizesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Handwriting Instruction

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The groups were matched with respect to their school readiness, and the children in both groups followed the same reading, spelling and handwriting instructional programmes, except that in the first grade the children in group A were taught print-script and those in group B were taught disjoint cursive letters. A detailed description of the matching of the groups and the instructional programmes is given by Karlsdottir (1996).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing a conclusion from this 'balance-theory of reading', we expect that handwriting, such as print-script, that is composed of discrete letterforms will aid the perceptual processing, while we expect the continuous character of cursive script (with an unclear boundary between the letters) to adversely affect the perceptual processing. Karlsdottir (1996) found no difference in the combined perceptual and motor difficulty of print and disjoined cursive letterforms. We may, therefore, assume that the main cause of a difference in reading and spelling of children learning print and cursive writing, respectively, as the initial style is caused by the cursivity of the writing, and that disjoined cursive writing will be equal in its effect as the initial writing style as print-script.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Print‐script as Initial Handwriting Style II: effects on the development of reading and spelling

Karlsdóttir

1996

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of using print-script as the initial handwriting style on the development of reading and spelling of primary-school children were investigated in a longitudinal field experiment extending from the first through to the fifth grade. Two groups of children were compared. In the first grade, the 103 children in group A learned to write print-script and the 104 children in group B learned to write disjoined cursive letters. From the beginning of the second grade, the children in both groups learned the same cursive writing. No difference in mean reading and spelling scores was found between the groups at any grade level.

show abstract

“…Au Québec et dans la plupart des états aux États-Unis, le script est généralement enseigné en 1 re année du primaire et l'écriture cursive à partir de la 2 e année. Quelques recherches, néanmoins assez anciennes, se sont intéressées à ces différences dans les pratiques pédagogiques et ont essayé d'apporter des arguments en faveur de l'un ou l'autre des types d'enseignement (Karlsdottir, 1996a(Karlsdottir, , 1996b. Duval (1985) propose une analyse de la complexité de l'activité perceptive et de reproduction des traits constitutifs des différents styles d'écriture, et préconise l'utilisation du style le plus simple comme première forme d'écriture.…”

Section: Les Différents Styles D'écriture Manuscriteunclassified

Est-il nécessaire d’enseigner l’écriture script en première année ? Les effets du style d’écriture sur le lien lecture/écriture

Bara¹,

Morin

2013

ncre

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cette étude permet de questionner la tradition du double enseignement des styles d’écriture au Québec, en testant la validité d’un argument couramment avancé, qui suggère que la discordance entre l’écriture cursive et les caractères d’imprimerie nuirait au transfert entre la lecture et l’écriture. Les résultats obtenus auprès d’enfants de 2e année du primaire, ayant appris à écrire en script ou en cursive, ne nous permettent pas d’aller dans le sens de cet argument. En effet, les corrélations entre les performances en lecture et en écriture sont significatives et élevées pour les deux groupes d’enfants, et leurs performances sont similaires. Les apprenants semblent capables d’associer des caractères différents en lecture et en écriture, l’apprentissage de l’écriture cursive en 1re année ne nuirait pas à la lecture.This study allowed for an examination of the tradition of teaching both styles of writing (cursive and block letters) in Quebec by testing the validity of the argument currently heard that the clash between cursive and block letters impedes the transfer between reading and writing. The results obtained with Grade Two pupils, some of whom had learned to write in cursive and some in block letters, do not support this argument. Correlations between reading and writing performance were significant and high for both groups of children and their performances were similar. It would appear that learners are able to make the link between the different types of characters encountered in reading and used in writing: learning cursive writing in Grade One does not appear to harm the ability to read

show abstract

Print‐script as Initial Handwriting Style I: effects on the development of handwriting

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Handwriting Instruction

A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Handwriting Instruction

Print‐script as Initial Handwriting Style II: effects on the development of reading and spelling

Est-il nécessaire d’enseigner l’écriture script en première année ? Les effets du style d’écriture sur le lien lecture/écriture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About