The handwriting experiences of left-handed primary school students in a digital age: Australian data and critique

Abstract

Left-handers comprise about 10% of the Australian population. In Australia and elsewhere, there has been a history of discrimination against left-handedness, expressed in a variety of ways. Although negative attitudes to left-handedness have become less common in recent times, researchers have not investigated the extent to which left-handedness is now acknowledged or encouraged in Australian schools, or whether left-handed students have to overcome difficulties due to their handedness. This study investigated the handwriting experiences of 10 primary school students and the opinions of 11 primary school teachers on handwriting and on left-handed writers. The left-handed students identified a range of issues including the need for specialized writing equipment, writing speed and neatness. The teachers also mentioned these issues along with legibility and writing instruction. The results are discussed in terms of guidance on writing instruction and the place of writing in an increasingly digitized world.

Introduction

Handedness can be described as a tendency to prefer using one side of the body rather than the other to perform most activities, and can be defined according to the extremes of handedness range (Schachter, 1994). Khosravizadeh and Teimournezhad (2011) researched key concepts in the nature of handedness and brain lateralization and found in most studies that the hand preference of the subjects was considered a predictor of brain lateralization. They claimed that the hand used by individuals in writing has been used as the most reliable index of handedness (Khosravizadeh & Teimournezhad, 2011). However, there is a view that such a single-criterion approach is simplistic since writing is a learned behaviour and teaching the writing skill can have an influence on writing handedness (Klar, 1999, cited in Khosravizadeh & Teimournezhad, 2011).

Weak lateralization, which means having a mixed pattern of dominance, is uncommon. For example, a person may prefer to write with their left hand but kick a ball with their right foot. This is sometimes mistaken for being ambidextrous, but in order to be truly ambidextrous, a person would perform equally well with both sides of the body and this is rarely the case (Annett, 2002).

When researching handedness, it soon becomes apparent that handedness is mentioned in several disciplines, not just in education. Handedness issues are addressed in science and medicine including genetic and animal research (Corballis, Lee, McManus, & Crow, 1996). Handedness is also addressed in research on health disorders and learning disabilities (Barnet & Corballis, 2002; Bryden, Bruyn, & Fletcher, 2005). At least some of this research has been driven by cultural attitudes to handedness including left-handedness.

Left-handedness in history and in research

Left-handers have had a long history of discrimination and persecution across many cultures (Annett, 2002; Coren, 1989; Hampshire, 2009; Orr, 2001; Siebner et al., 2001). For example, Wenze and Wenze (2004) noted that the word left had a negative meaning in many languages, including the Anglo-Saxon word lyft meaning broken or weak. In other languages such as French, German and Russian, the words for left are derived from words that mean clumsy, ugly or crooked. These authors also pointed out that in the past, the Japanese would have had grounds for divorce if they discovered their wife was left-handed, on the Guinea coast natives will not touch their beer mugs with the left hand as it may poison the drink, and in parts of Africa, India and the Middle East, people are forbidden from using their left hand for eating as it is considered to be unclean.

Orr (2001) argued that, since the Latin name for left-handed was sinister, the connotations of the word appeared to attach to left-handers themselves. This has impacted on education settings where negative connotations associated with left-handedness led to students being forced to use their right hand for tasks such as writing (Hampshire, 2009; Milsom, 2008; Orr, 2001). Siebner et al. (2001) claimed this forced change for writing was evident in German schools until a few decades ago and explained how these converted left-handers became as proficient at right-hand writing as innate right-handers, yet most of them still used their left hand for other manual tasks which were less influenced by social control. Some research claimed that this forced change led to bed-wetting and stuttering in children, but little is known of the extent of the consequences (Orr, 2001).

Healey (2001) argued that there are no advantages in attempting to switch a child’s hand preference and that some left-handers who are forced to change feel resentful and frustrated. Other researchers report such negative consequences as disturbances in speech, memory and concentration problems and poor self-esteem as consequences of forced change in handedness (Milsom, 2008).

The research literature relating to left-handed writing is limited. However, this research covers issues such as writing technique, hand posture and handwriting style (Athenes & Guiard, 1991; Gallucci & Bradshaw, 1999; Medwell, 2012; Peachey, 2004; Philips, Gallucci, & Bradshaw, 1999). Some left-handed writing equipment and aids are commercially available including pens, pencil grips and books, as well as left-handed guide books. Although writing with the left hand is now generally accepted in schools (Paul, 1990), Athenes and Guiard (1991) claimed there is a lack of scientifically based recommendations for left-handers on hand posture or pencil grip. Despite the lack of an evidence base, these authors claimed that educators generally advise against extreme slanting of the page in a clockwise direction and against holding a writing implement in a hooked position. They further argued that the teacher should let the child choose what is best for them in terms of hand posture. Whether posture and pencil grip is a problem for left-handed students has not been explored in the literature.

In New South Wales, Australia, the English primary school syllabus mentions handwriting and posture but addresses handedness just once when it states that the correct pen and pencil grip should be encouraged for both left- and right-handers, which uses the thumb, index and middle fingers in one of three ways (Board of Studies NSW, 2007, p. 77). This curriculum document outlines the needs of young primary school students to observe ‘proficient writers’, so they may see how to hold writing implements but does not mention whether this should occur for both left- and right-handers (Board of Studies NSW, 2007, p. 26). Healey (2001) claimed that right and left-handed writing are not opposite to each other but two completely different actions. In support, kinematic analysis of handwriting has shown that the right hand was faster and produced more consistent or efficient handwriting strokes than the left hand (Philips et al., 1999), perhaps because English script is designed for the right hand to drag the pen across the paper, rather than to push it.

Educational guidelines and requirements for left-handedness

The importance of legible handwriting in early school years is addressed in many school curricula including Australia (Board of Studies NSW, 2007) and the United Kingdom (Huxford, 2004). This attention is well placed as the evidence indicates assessment of written work can be affected by legibility. Indeed, Farris (1991) stated that illegible or poor handwriting can hinder students in getting fair and objective grades from their teachers, and Eames and Loewenthal (1990) claimed school teachers give higher marks to work with good handwriting.

Research suggests that handwriting instruction is decreasing in primary schools, and that handwriting instruction is not always consistent (Case-Smith, Holland, & Bishop, 2011; Graham et al., 2008; Medwell, 2012; Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick, & Cortesa, 2010). Handwriting speed has also been investigated with conflicting results related to socio-economic disadvantage, and university students’ and school students’ exams and handwriting speed tests (O’Mahony, Dempsey, & Killen, 2008; Summers & Catarro, 2003; Wallen, Bonney, & Lennox, 2006). Some of this research notes that handwriting speed for school-aged children in Australia increases with age, but it does not consider handedness.

The use of computers in the school classroom has become almost universal in developed countries. Hence, it is not surprising that handwriting compared to typing has appeared in the literature for a number of years (Connelly, Gee, & Walsh, 2007; Fox, 2012; Medwell, 2012; Mogey, Paterson, Burk, & Purcell, 2010; Mogey et al., 2008). It is also evident in English syllabus documents such as the NSW English K-6 Syllabus that producing text is expected in both hand-written and word-processed or typed formats from as early as Kindergarten and year one, where students are expected to use word processors to create texts (Board of Studies NSW, 2007).

Rogers and Case-Smith (2002) compared handwriting and keyboarding performance in sixth graders and found that students were able to keyboard faster than they could handwrite after a 12-week keyboarding instruction class. Other researchers have pointed out that university students complete most of their written assignments using a word processor, but are still expected to handwrite responses for an examination (Mogey et al., 2008). Farris (2005) also mentioned the problem of students having to handwrite in tests and claimed writing stamina can be an issue for students who are not accustomed to handwriting for long periods. Research by Mogey et al. (2010) explored whether typing compared with handwriting for essay examinations should be a choice available to students at university, and whether the marks awarded for examination script were affected by the format (typed or handwritten). They found no overall significant differences across the format in which the students had written their answer, but there was striking variation between markers.

Medwell (2012) claimed that there are many complex decisions for teachers to make regarding teaching handwriting, and explained handwriting and typing as important aspects of the transcription part of the writing process. According to Medwell (2012, p. 86), these processes make a major contribution to children’s ability to compose and if taught correctly, ‘can produce rich rewards in terms of children’s composition and self-esteem’. Medwell also claimed that word processing has a lot to offer but there are still clear pedagogic reasons for the use of handwriting apart from the convenience of cheap handwriting materials and the portable nature of handwriting. These pedagogic reasons include helping children to fix certain patterns in their mind, for example letter shapes, the correct movements for making letters, letter–sound associations, letter names for discussing spelling, and patterns of letter occurrence.

Other research has also shown that for children whose handwriting is not automatic, the need to give attention to handwriting interferes with their ability to compose effectively, and this issue of transcription constraining composition also applies to typing (Christensen, 2005 in Medwell, 2012; Jones & Christensen, 1999). The desirability of handwriting being automatic was also mentioned by Graham et al. (2008) who stated that until handwriting became efficient and relatively automatic, it may exact a toll on the writer and ultimately their writing development. Finally, it seems that instruction and assessment of handwriting and typing in primary schools are not taught consistently, and research indicates this is a problem for students when handwriting or typing is not automatic (Christensen, 2005 in Medwell, 2012; Connelly et al., 2007; Graham et al., 2008; Jones & Christensen, 1999; Medwell, 2012).

Taken together, these findings indicate that relatively little is known about the handwriting experiences of left-handed students and that there is a paucity of advice to teachers on the teaching of handwriting, particularly for left-handed students. Such information is especially pertinent in an age increasingly dominated by digital technologies and competencies.

This report describes an exploratory study that aims to explore the handwriting experiences of a small sample of Australian primary school left-handed students, and to identify the opinions of teachers and young students on handwriting in the primary classroom. In order to do this, a qualitative approach using interviews was used to answer the following two research questions:

What handwriting experiences do these primary school left-handed students report?

What opinions do primary school teachers have on handwriting in general, and on left-handed writers?

Methodology

Participants

Left-handed students and teachers were recruited from a random selection of Catholic schools in the Newcastle-Maitland region of NSW, following ethical approval processes at the host university. The principals of five schools agreed to distribute information packs to teachers and parents. Teachers at those schools identified left-handed students and facilitated the distribution of those information packs to the students’ parents. Willing left-handed students (with parental consent) and willing teacher participants then posted a consent letter to the first author, who contacted participants directly to arrange a suitable day and time for an interview to take place at their school.

Ten left-handed students (all aged 7–12 years) were interviewed. All participants who gave consent were interviewed, except for one student who was absent from school on two occasions during the interview period due to sickness. No Kindergarten or year one students volunteered for participation. Five male and five female students were interviewed, and their left-handedness preference for writing was confirmed during interviews by observing the students write their name.

Because not all teachers of the interviewed students had volunteered, and some teachers were prepared to participate despite having no current students willing to participate in the research, all 11 willing primary school teacher participants were interviewed for the study. Of the 11 teachers interviewed, two were male. The professional experience of the teachers ranged from one teacher in their second year of teaching through to a non-teaching principal with extensive teaching experience. One of the participants interviewed was employed as a special needs teaching aide whose main support student had also been interviewed. Another teacher interviewed worked with small groups of children with a range of additional needs including literacy issues. The teachers ranged from Kindergarten teachers through to year six teachers.

Research instruments

Separate interview schedules were utilized for the student and teacher interviews. These schedules were devised in such a way as to openly explore the experiences of left-handed students, and gain opinions from teachers. Some questions were also included as a result of the literature review. For example, teachers were asked whether they were aware of or used any strategies or instructional practices (including equipment) to aid handwriting, since a review of literature had revealed no strong evidence of left-handed equipment use in schools. Because research protocols on the viewpoints of left-handed students and teachers on handedness and handwriting are rare, the questions included in the interview schedules were not based on specific previous research studies.

Procedure

The nature of data collected from the interviews was unstructured text data which was achieved through conducting one-on-one semi-structured interviews (Creswell, 2008). As noted earlier, ethics approval was obtained from the relevant University Human Research Ethics Committee prior to commencement of data collection. In addition, the local Catholic Schools Office gave approval in order to gain access to NSW Catholic Primary schools within the Maitland-Newcastle Diocese.

Participant interviews were conducted by the first author one-on-one on the school premises in a classroom, staff room or interview room. Interviews occurred during school hours for students or after hours for teachers, if preferred. The student participant with special needs had another adult in the room during the interview.

Interviews typically took 10 to 20 min for students and 20 to 45 min for teachers. To enhance the reliability of interview data, these interviews were audio-recorded with the participants’ consent and later transcribed verbatim in preparation for analysis. Following the analysis of data from 10 students and 11 teachers, it was apparent that no new themes were emerging and data saturation had occurred so no additional participation was sought (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006).

Data analysis

Prior to analysis, the interview recordings were fully transcribed and identifying information was removed (Kvale, 1996). The transcriptions were verified by an independent person with experience in conducting interviews and focus groups, who transcribed a random sample of three student and three teacher interviews. A high level of agreement was achieved and differences were a result of the independent cross-checker having difficulty understanding participants’ dialogue. Where this occurred, the audio recordings were checked by both the researcher and the independent cross-checker simultaneously in order to reach agreement.

The interview data were analysed using recommendations by Creswell (2008) for qualitative data analysis of text. The transcripts of the qualitative interviews were analysed by hand since there was a relatively small database. Coding involved segmenting and labelling text to develop descriptions and themes in the data, and from identifying repetitions, similarities and differences (MacQueen, McLellan, Kay, & Milstein, 1998; Ryan & Bernard, 2003). The codes and themes created were later interrelated to show connections in the data (Creswell, 2008).

The coding procedure was different for the student and teacher interviews given the nature of the data. Student responses to interview questions were generally short (at times one to five words with no elaboration), whereas responses from teachers ranged from a few words to several sentences or paragraphs for each question, with several respondents elaborating on a topic or theme. The identified student themes closely matched the interview questions, whereas teachers’ themes were more diverse. The independent cross-checker involved in the transcription verification process also analysed the same transcripts and there was 91% agreement between the two individuals on the number of codes and their names.

Results

Students

The themes of handwriting, equipment, typing versus handwriting, left-handedness, handwriting problems, and strategies for handwriting emerged from the student data analysis.

Handwriting

When students were posed the question ‘Do you enjoy handwriting?’ seven out of the 10 said they did, with a variety of reasons given including ‘it’s just easy and fun’, it ‘makes my handwriting nice and neat’, and ‘because I’m one of the first to get my pen licence and so I enjoy writing a lot with my pen’. Two of the three students who claimed they did not particularly enjoy handwriting said it was because it was ‘kind of boring’, and ‘just not really my favourite thing to do’.

Handwriting neatness was a topic covered as part of the student interviews with a variety of responses. Three students were certain that their handwriting was neat, while three others claimed it was only sometimes neat, depending on whether they really tried. By this they meant when they wrote slowly in handwriting lessons or when they had a sharp pencil. Two students were uncertain whether their handwriting was considered neat, with one of these students claiming it was neat, but then admitting that it was actually ‘a little bit messy’ because she could not write ‘properly’ due to a disability. Two students claimed their handwriting was not neat and did not consider neat handwriting as important since it was ‘just writing’.

One student also claimed that ‘the neatest work that you can do’ was strongly encouraged by the teacher who would say ‘If you don’t do it, I’ll make you write it out ten times’. They also reported another left-hander in the class who was ‘probably a little bit worser (sic) than me’ and that the teacher ‘always usually gets angry at her and sometimes rips pages out of her book’ because it was not neat. Only one student claimed they wrote more slowly than the rest of the class, although another mentioned they like to ‘take a bit longer’ because they did not want to be the same as everyone else. Three students claimed to have the same or average speed compared to the rest of the class when writing; and only one stated that they were faster than most of the class when writing.

Handwriting lessons were briefly mentioned by nine of the 10 students in their interviews. Seven of these students claimed to do specific handwriting lessons at least ‘sometimes’, with one student stating they did this in a handwriting book ‘every week or three times a week’. Five students said they had been shown how to hold their pencil correctly; two were unsure whether they had been specifically taught; and three students did not believe they had been shown. The three students who claimed not to be taught were all in year five, and one of the uncertain students was a year six student. Of the five students who claimed they had been shown correct pencil grip (verb), one student mentioned they were taught by their year one teacher, whereas three referenced their parents.

Equipment

The equipment theme encompassed a number of codes including pen, pen licence, pencil and pencil grip (noun). Results revealed that a pencil was mainly used in younger grades, with a progression to pen occurring in year four or five. One student stated a preference for pen since it was easier because ‘you don’t need a grip with pen’ (meaning the pencil grip which slides onto a pencil or pen), whereas ‘if you have a pencil without a grip it’s hard to hold’. While most of the students who claimed to have used pencil grips at some time found them beneficial, only three reported them to be undesirable. One student who claimed to have used one in Kindergarten stopped since ‘it feels a bit weird writing like that’ and felt it was not needed on a pen because ‘it already has a grip on it’.

The concept of acquiring a pen licence before being allowed to use a pen for writing was clearly stated in five of the 10 interviews. These students claimed that in order to be given a pen licence, you had to demonstrate neat handwriting while using pencil. One student explained that ‘you have to be really good at writing’, that ‘everyone has to get it by the end of term four’, and ‘the teacher would just give it out to anyone that deserves it’.

Typing versus handwriting

Five students claimed they did not do much typing at school and four others said they often typed. Three of these four preferred to type than to write, whereas the preference was mixed with those who reported little computer use at school. Three students preferred handwriting to typing with a variety of reasons; two students claimed it was due to having ‘more experience with writing than typing’ and because ‘I’m really bad at the keyboard’. Both of these students believed they were neat handwriters and were in years four and two, respectively. The other student who preferred handwriting to typing stated this was because ‘letters are easier (to write)’, whereas on a computer, ‘I have to go sideways and that way’.

One of the five students who preferred typing to handwriting stated that the reason was because ‘I like to go on computers’ and would much rather type and print work out than handwrite it ‘because it’s better’ and also ‘because it’s neater than mine’. This student believed most children would prefer to do it that way and was one of the students who claimed to dislike handwriting ‘because it’s work’. Other reasons for a typing preference included ‘it’s a bit more fun’; because ‘it’s just easier like just pressing letters instead of having to write’; and ‘typing is much easier’ because ‘it doesn’t really hurt your hand, you’ve only got to type it with buttons’. The final reason given of a preference for typing over writing work was because the student claimed they were ‘a bit quicker at typing’.

Left-handedness

Eight students mentioned left-handedness and sport with six students claiming to use their left hand for most sport activities. Also, eight students claimed to always use their left hand for scissor use with only one being unsure of whether these were regular or left-handed scissors. Three of the left-handed scissor users claimed to use right-handed scissors with no problems, and a fourth student stated a preference for right-handed scissors even though they had left-handed scissors saying ‘the right hand was easier’. While the majority of students in the study preferred to use their left hand when using scissors, it is unclear whether right-handed scissors were used more frequently due to a lack of provision of left-handed scissors. Nine students were asked about their preferred hand when brushing their teeth with seven students reporting they used their left hand.

Nine students reported an awareness of other left-handed students that included other class members and ‘a couple of people in the school but I forget who they are’. Family members who were also left-handed were mentioned by six students. When questioned about differences between left- and right-handers for writing, three students agreed there was a difference, with all three believing that right-handers were better in some way. One left-handed student claimed right-handers ‘can be neater sometimes’ and when asked why, replied that with regular work ‘they’re very neat and fast’ and are ‘usually always the first to finish’, possibly because they ‘must practice a lot’ (SI 9). Another student stated that sometimes being left-handed made a difference when writing since ‘I kind of got elbows in the way’. Four students reported that there was no difference between left- and right-handers when writing.

Handwriting issues

Six students said they didn’t have problems with their handwriting. However, seven students did raise handwriting issues such as bumping elbows, smudging work and getting a sore hand. Smudging was related to the type of pen used. When asked about any problems sitting next to people and whether they bump elbows, one student replied ‘sometimes but it doesn’t any more’. Another student explained ‘I sit on the end’ and believes this was not deliberate but ‘that’s just where we got put’. This student was asked whether their teacher was aware of that the student was left-handed and replied ‘yes’.

Two students claimed they did not get a sore hand from writing, while three students answered ‘sometimes’. One of the students to claim they sometimes got a sore hand pointed to their left hand near their wrist to indicate where it normally hurt. Three other students mentioned a sore hand when writing. One of these students said ‘sometimes my teacher writes for me’ which was when ‘my hand hurts and stuff’. Apparently this was not caused by the way the pencil was held but ‘because it just gets tired when I write’.

Strategies for handwriting

Only two students mentioned posture for handwriting lessons. One student said the teacher would normally say, ‘feet flat on the ground and back straight, hold the pencil properly’. The second student stated that the teacher would help them and would ‘tell us like how to sit and write neater’. However, six students mentioned the use of pencil grips (noun) to enhance the neatness of handwriting, correct pencil grip (verb); or adjusting the page angle when writing.

Several students said they angled the page differently to right-handers for writing. Six students claimed they had been given help in the past for handwriting. One student said ‘Yeh, sometimes with my pencil grip’, but did not elaborate. Another student stated ‘Sometimes my teacher writes for me when my hand hurts and stuff’. Just one student mentioned they had used a slope card. When asked what they thought a left-hander could do to assist their handwriting if they were having trouble, suggestions were ‘they can practice a lot’ and ‘keep trying’; ‘ask the teacher to help them’ or check their pencil, since ‘some people like it blunt, some like it sharp’; or ‘they could get one of the pens that like don’t really smudge when you have your hand on it’.

Teachers

Participating teachers reported four main themes: handwriting, handwriting issues, handedness and technology.

Handwriting

Four teachers made reference to the style of handwriting across their whole class, claiming there was a wide range of styles that were often unique. One of these teachers who reported a range from ‘amazingly neat’ to ‘almost illegible’ handwriting also mentioned that the girls usually had ‘beautiful handwriting’, with only ‘a couple of the boys’ being neat and claimed the boys were the ones ‘that are worrying me at the moment with some of their styles’. Three of the four teachers who mentioned style were currently teaching year six, and these comments have been summarized in more detail within the style code below.

Another comment made regarding general handwriting was ‘it’s only been looked at to be important by the teachers’, rather than the students, although ‘some parents care’. This teacher also claimed ‘they (the students) love it in Kinder’ but ‘by year six they’re over it’, and ‘they love it in year four when they start to learn cursive, but other than that it’s a bit of a bug-bear’. Cursive writing was also mentioned by a teacher who claimed the general handwriting of their class was fairly poor with only ‘a few kids who have got beautiful, perfect handwriting’. This teacher believed her students had a big challenge because they had ‘gone from printing now through to cursive’, and ‘also now using pens instead of pencils’, so both of these are ‘a big change’. Indeed, another teacher who had mentioned handwriting style claimed that ‘some still print instead of like cursive writing’ and since they believed writing speed was more important than style, they would encourage students to write in whatever style was faster. Another teacher reported that ‘handwriting has definitely changed’, that they believed ‘cursive has probably seen its day’, and ‘as technology takes over I think it will probably become even more print focussed’.

Six teachers believed neatness was important, and one of these teachers claimed this feeling of importance was ‘more a product of my parents’ since their mother was a teacher, but also felt it was important ‘especially for jobs for when you’re older’. Another teacher stated ‘I like neat handwriting’ and claimed to always encourage students to do their best work. An additional teacher comment included ‘you’ve got to be able to read it’ and that computers are ‘also so important’. One of the teachers said ‘yes and no’ to the importance of neat handwriting explaining that ‘it’s not the most important part of literacy’, but it needs to be ‘legible enough to read’. This teacher also felt that ‘there will always be a place for writing as long as the Higher School Certificate is written’, but that handwriting ‘will probably be phased out’ once ‘the major exams are not needed to be written’.

While teachers were originally asked whether they believed neat handwriting was important, the word legibility was often mentioned, with at least five teachers claiming this was more important than neatness. Seven teachers believed correct pencil grip was important to avoid muscle strain or getting a sore hand. Not all teachers reported a link with incorrect pencil grip and poor handwriting, however, since five teachers claimed that some students may have unusual or incorrect pencil grip but by year six this could not be changed and did not always mean writing was not neat or illegible, particularly if they found the grip to be comfortable.

During the course of the interviews, teachers were asked whether they taught handwriting specifically or separately from other lessons. Five teachers reported to teach handwriting as a separate lesson, and three teachers also claimed to include reminders of posture and pencil grip as part of the lesson. Another teacher claimed that the process of reminding students about correct posture, paper angle and pencil grip was not taught as well as it used to be and that ‘there had been a tremendous shift from that skill’. One teacher used a text book for handwriting lessons twice a week, but not all teachers gave detail of what was taught.

Handwriting issues

One teacher told of a left-handed student’s problems with handwriting where ‘it’s basically illegible’ and the teacher struggled to read what he has written as his work is pushed together with letters of differing size and capitals in the middle of words. This teacher also had another student who was ‘very messy’ which they blamed on the fast writing speed of the student. Both of these students were in year six. According to one teacher, some children rushed handwriting and others, especially boys, were very slow. This teacher also claimed that handwriting speed does not differ between pencil or pen. Another teacher reminded students during handwriting lessons not to rush because they expect them to ‘always do their best’. This teacher also told of a left-handed student in an infant’s class who had issues with copying words and covering his work so kept lifting his hand, and this impacted his neatness and speed as he was slower than other students at completing his work.

Several teachers said that smudging of writing can be caused by left-handers dragging or sliding the arm across the page, which was worse with pen ink. Some students had problems with smudging, while others had learned to ‘pull their wrist up’ and hold their pen a certain way, which is ‘quite curved and elevated’ to eliminate smudging. This last teacher also stated that a lot of left-handed students tend to prefer using felt-tip pens which may be to reduce smudging since they dry quicker. Bumping of elbows was a recognized issue with left-handers according to five teachers.

Results included claims that handwriting problems often stem from posture and grip which can cause strain in the muscles and lead to problems with letter formation and flow of writing. This was worse for left-handers who were ‘probably not’ shown pencil grip. One teacher reported that some children have a lack of muscle tone or poor fine-motor control which makes it hard for them to hold a pencil and grip it tightly enough to make marks on paper. Others also claimed that students with poor muscle tone don’t tend to grip or hold their pen properly which causes poor handwriting. One teacher observed that left-handed students’ tend to put their head down on their other hand and rest while writing.

Several teachers said that some handwriting issues have arisen because of the equipment used by students, particularly left-handers. This included slope cards where left-handers found it difficult to complete a cursive writing task without ‘going the wrong way’. Left-handers were also mentioned by a teacher who claimed that their writing caused a scratching effect with a pen since the point of the pen or pencil is pointing to the right instead of the left.

Many handwriting issues mentioned in teacher interviews were particularly relevant to left-handers, where teachers either had suggestions to overcome these issues or noted how left-handed students overcame any issues themselves. Solving the problem of bumping elbows usually involved moving the student somewhere where they had more space or on the end of a row. One teacher claimed this may happen automatically by ‘a more mature attitude’ in year six where students will move away and sort themselves out. Left-handers often overcame this problem by having a ‘hooked style’ of pencil grip/posture which one teacher claimed meant ‘they tend to flow easier’ and it was more comfortable.

Handedness

Two teachers stated that they found right-handed students to be neater than left-handers when writing. One teacher described left-handers’ handwriting as ‘scrappy and scrawly’ which the teacher said was understandable given that left-handers were having to do the opposite to their natural hand movement. Another teacher found that left-handers often wrote very small letters. Teachers were asked whether they thought the handedness of the teacher could impact on the students with mixed responses. One teacher stated that she did not think she would impact herself as a right-hander, but claimed she observed a teacher force students to use their right hand (TI 4). Nine of the 11 teachers said they were right-handed with two reporting to have left-handed children of their own.

In another interview, a teacher told of a few older people they knew who claimed they would have been left-handed ‘had they been able to write with whatever hand they wanted to at school when they were younger’. Apparently these people still wrote with their right hand now ‘because that’s the way that became natural’ after being constantly discouraged from using the left. This teacher later stated ‘I don’t think that in this day and age children are discouraged from using their left hand, it’s whatever they prefer’.

Technology

One of the teachers mentioned that, although the students used computers ‘a fair bit’, this did not include a large amount of word processing. Another teacher who told of students spending more time on computers also reported this did not include much typing, but often included literacy-based work such as programmes with reading and comprehension activities. The third teacher to discuss computer use reported that year six were lucky because they were allocated two sessions per week on computers as well as library time.

Four teachers claimed students would prefer to type rather than handwrite their work, with given reasons including the novelty factor, because it’s fun and treated like a reward or treat, and also because it’s easier to correct mistakes when word processing. Some teachers mentioned the students’ use of a computer at home for homework tasks.

Discussion

This exploratory research project examined left-handed students’ writing experience and teachers’ views on handwriting in general and on left-handed students, in particular. Legibility and speed of handwriting were considered more important by teachers than neatness or style of handwriting, particularly for older students. This finding is consistent with longstanding concerns identified by Eames and Loewenthal (1990) and by Farris (1991). Teachers in the current study also encouraged students to use their own style by upper primary years, rather than enforcing the cursive style of handwriting recommended in curriculum documents in Australia and elsewhere. Correct pencil grip was generally considered important to avoid muscle strain, although there were mixed views from teachers on whether incorrect grip was linked to handwriting neatness or legibility. Students mostly believed pencil grips helped to ensure neat handwriting was achieved, but these were not consistently available in all schools in this study. These equivocal results mirror debate in the wider literature (Athenes & Guiard, 1991; Healey, 2001). Handwriting lessons were also inconsistently delivered (even when allowing for different year groups) which supports others’ findings (Graham et al., 2008).

A number of issues relating to handwriting for left-handers were apparent. Bumping of elbows was common, and teachers need to consider placement of left-handers in the classroom to avoid this. Sore hand and poor muscle control and posture were reported by the majority of teachers who believed that hand strengthening exercises and monitoring of correct pencil grip could help overcome these difficulties. The hooked style of hand posture for left-handers was also mentioned by a few teachers in the literature, with inconsistent evidence as to its effect on muscle strain or handwriting quality (Medwell, 2012). Smudging and legibility of left-handed writing were also commonly reported by teachers. Paper angle was also mentioned, where it was generally revealed that left- and right-handers tended to prefer opposing paper angles when writing. It is unknown what affect this may have on handwriting quality.

The current research project revealed inconsistent views by teachers on differences between left- and right-handers’ handwriting, but most left-handed students interviewed claimed right-handers were neater and faster when writing. Also most left-handed students claimed to prefer using left-handed scissors in the classroom, although these were not always provided by schools. Left-handed discrimination had been mentioned by a number of teachers, but there was no evidence it was still occurring.

The use of technology in the classroom or school in general differed greatly according to teachers. This inconsistency is also reported in the literature, although there are findings that increasing typing speed can improve writing composition of students, and can be achieved by specific instruction (Christensen, 2005 in Medwell, 2012; Rogers & Case-Smith, 2002). Teachers in the present study claimed that their students completed little typing when using school computers. Also, typing or keyboarding skills did not appear to be specifically taught or assessed by teachers. Students had mixed preferences for handwriting as opposed to typing work, and only one student claimed to be faster at typing than handwriting. At least two teachers claimed a number of their older students were faster at typing however, and felt it was only a matter of time before major examinations would be typed rather than handwritten, which could cause issues for some students.

In summary, aspects of data from the current study that were consistent with the literature reviewed included the importance of legible handwriting (Board of Studies NSW, 2007; Eames & Loewenthal, 1990; Farris, 1991; Huxford, 2004) and the inconsistent use of handwriting instruction and technologies such as keyboard instruction in primary schools (Case-Smith et al. 2011; Graham et al., 2008; Medwell, 2012; Vander Hart et al., 2010). According to research, students need to be fluent in both their handwriting and typing to enable them to concentrate on the composition of their writing rather than on the mechanics of text output (Case-Smith et al., 2011; Huxford, 2004; Medwell, 2012). Specific typing instruction has been suggested by other researchers to improve the typing proficiency of students, but this is not consistently implemented in Australian primary school classrooms (Connelly et al., 2007; Medwell, 2012; Rogers & Case-Smith, 2002). Consequently, there is a clear case for the introduction of touch-typing skills as an essential part of the primary school curriculum.

While there were no findings from the current study that contradicted past research, a number of aspects of the present findings deserve comment. While there has been a steady increase in the use of technology in classrooms, handwriting still occurs in schools and handwriting legibility and speed are considered important. Hence, the suggestions made by both left-handed students and teachers to enable left-handers in particular to overcome issues with handwriting are worthy of consideration by schools and by teachers. Issues faced by left-handers include smudging of work, bumping elbows with right-handers when working, pain in the hand from poor hand posture/pencil grip and poor legibility of handwriting due to incorrect pencil grip, poor motor control and inadequate handwriting resources for left-handers. Students need to be able to use their preferred hand when handwriting or playing sport, and to adopt strategies that aid these activities. Equipment such as pencil grips, sharp pencils, specialist pens and left-handed scissors should be available to students in order to help reduce problems such as muscular strain and smudging of work.

This study has several limitations. The extent to which the results of the study can be extrapolated to other areas, to other school systems, and to other school levels is unknown. The research reported in this article does not permit conclusions to be drawn about the handwriting experiences of older students or the change in students’ handwriting experience over time. A further limitation is that the little empirical research in this area did not lead to the development of a set of research hypotheses. In this regard, the research reported here must be regarded as exploratory research that will assist more detailed investigations in the future

Based on the current research project and the existing literature, a number of potential future research projects would be of value. These include surveys to determine the extent to which modern left-handed equipment is available in primary schools, and whether this equipment can be utilized by left-handed students with a positive outcome. The extent to which recommendations for left-handers, such as pencil grip, paper angle and posture (Milsom, 2008; Medwell, 2012), have been based on scientific research is not clear, and research is needed to address whether the use of such supports produces positive outcomes. Such research could help to clarify the experience of left-handed students, to determine whether their educational experience is markedly different to others, and whether specialized assistance for left-handers is both warranted and helpful. Further research into typing instruction in the primary school setting will be worthwhile, particularly in view of the increased use of computers in education settings and the probability that future major school examinations will be typed rather than hand-written.