The purpose of the research was to study changes in handwriting legibility among kindergarten, first- and second-grade students in response to the Size Matters curricular-based handwriting program. A two-group pre–post-test design was implemented at two public schools with half of the classrooms assigned to receive the Size Matters program and the other continuing to receive standard instruction. All participants completed two standardized handwriting measures at pre-test and after 40 instructional sessions were completed with the classes receiving the handwriting program. Results identified significant changes in legibility in the handwriting intervention group for all three grades when compared with the standard instruction group. The results of this study support the use of a curricular-embedded handwriting program and provide the foundation for future research examining the impact of handwriting legibility on learning outcomes.
AsherA. V. (2006). Handwriting instruction in elementary schools. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 461-471.
2.
BerningerV. W.RutbergJ. E.AbbottR. D.GarciaN.Anderson-YoungstromM.BrooksA.FultonC. (2006). Tier 1 and Tier 2 early intervention for handwriting and composing. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 3-30.
3.
Case-SmithJ.HollandT.BishopB. (2011). Effectiveness of an integrated handwriting program for first grade students: A pilot study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65, 670-678. doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.000984
4.
Case-SmithJ.HollandT.LaneA.WhiteS. (2012). Effect of a co-teaching handwriting program for first graders: One group pretest–posttest design. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 396-405.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Engel-YegerB.Nagauker-YanuvL.RosenblumS. (2009). Handwriting performance, self-reports, and perceived self-efficacy among children with dysgraphia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 182-192.
7.
ErhardtR. P.MeadeV. (2005). Improving handwriting without teaching handwriting: The consultative clinical reasoning process. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52, 199-210. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2005.00505.x
8.
FederK. P.MajnemerA.BourbonnaisD.BlayneyM.MorinI. (2007). Handwriting performance on the ETCH-M of students in grade one regular education program. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27, 43-62.
9.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.MasonL.Fink-ChorzempaB.MoranS.SaddlerB. (2008). How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 49-69. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9064-z
10.
HoweT.-H.RostonK. L.SheuC.-F.HinojosaJ. (2013). Assessing handwriting intervention effectiveness in elementary school students: A two-group controlled study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 19-27. doi:10.5014/ajot.2013.005470
11.
JamesK. H. (2009). Sensori-motor experience leads to changes in visual processing in the developing brain. Developmental Science, 13, 279-288.
12.
JamesK. H.EngelhardtL. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in preliterate children. Trends in Neuroscience & Education, 1, 32-42.
13.
JamesK. H.GauthierI. (2009). When writing impairs reading: Letter perception’s susceptibility to motor interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 416-431.
14.
JonesD.ChristensenC. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44-49.
15.
KissD. M. (2007). Handwriting consultation in elementary school. OT Practice, 12(14), 11-14.
16.
LustC. A.DonicaD. K. (2011). Effectiveness of a handwriting readiness program in head start: A two-group controlled trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65, 560-568. doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.000612
17.
MackayN.McCluskeyA.MayesR. (2010). The Log Handwriting Program improved children’s writing legibility: A pretest–posttest study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 30-36.
18.
MarrD.DimeoS. B. (2006). Outcomes associated with a summer handwriting course for elementary students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 10-15.
19.
MiloneM. (2007). Test of handwriting skills revised manual. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
20.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI: A closer look at response to intervention. Available from http://rti4success.org
21.
ReismanJ. (1999). Minnesota Handwriting Assessment. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
22.
RobertsG. L.Derkach-FergusonA. F.SieverJ. E.RoseM. S. (2014). An examination of the effectiveness of handwriting without tears instruction. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 8, 102-113. doi:10.1177/0008417414527065
23.
RobertsG. L.SieverJ. E.MairJ. A. (2010). Effects of a kinesthetic cursive handwriting intervention for Grade 4-6 students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 745-755. doi:10.5014/ajot2010.08128
24.
SchmidtR. A.WrisbergC. A. (2004). Motor learning and performance: A problem-based learning approach (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
25.
SchneckC.ShasbyS.MyersC.DePoy SmithM. (2012). The effectiveness of the handwriting without tears program in a first grade classroom. Journal of Occupational Therapy, School, & Early Intervention, 5, 31-42. doi:10.1080/19411243.2012.675759
26.
Ste-MarieD. M.ClarkS. E.FindlayL. C.LatimerA. E. (2004). High levels of contextual interference enhance handwriting skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 115-126.
27.
VolmanM. J. M.van SchendelB. M.JongmansM. J. (2006). Handwriting difficulties in primary school children: A search for underlying mechanisms. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 451-460.
28.
WehrmannS.ChiuT.ReidD.SinclairG. (2006). Evaluation of occupational therapy school-based consultation service for students with fine motor difficulties. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73, 225-235.
29.
WeintraubN.GrahamS. (1998). Writing legibly and quickly: A study of children’s ability to adjust their handwriting to meet common classroom demands. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 146-152.
