Efficacy of an explicite handwriting program

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2011, 112, 2, 1‑9. © Perceptual and Motor Skills 2011 EFFICACY OF AN EXPLICIT HANDWRITING PROGRAM1 MARIE‑LAURE KAISER JEAN‑MICHEL ALBARET University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland University of Toulouse III, France PIERRE‑ANDRÉ DOUDIN University of Lausanne, Switzerland Summary 5æØ ̶ıß ©Œ ²æı ²³Ł½ ¹̶ ²© ı­µØ ²ıº̶²Ø ²æØ ØTت² ©Œ ̶­ ؼ¬œıª‑ ı² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß ı­² ©Ł³ªØŁ Ł³ ı­º ²æØ R ² º ̶ŁØ ©Œ ØœØßØ­²̶ ½ ªæ©©œ Grade 1 children (N ｲｳ ¹ı²æ ̶­ ̶ºØ ̶­ºØ ©Œ ｶ ｱ ²© ｷ ｴ ½ ｱｵ ºı œ ｸ Æ©½ ¹Ø Ø administered an additional handwriting program of two weekly sessions of 45 min. ©µØ ı¼ ¹ØØø "­©²æØ º ©³¬ ©Œ ｱｹ ( ̶ŁØ ｱ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ｱｱ ºı œ ｸ Æ©½ تØıµØŁ only the regular handwriting program of one weekly session. The Concise Assess‑ ment Scale for Children’s Handwriting was administered to measure the changes in ®³̶œı²½ ̶­Ł ¬ØØŁ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º 5æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ºıµØ­ ²æØ Ø¼¬œıªı² ¬ ©º ̶ß æ©¹ØŁ ÆØmØ ®³̶œı²½ ̶­Ł ¬ØØŁ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ²æ̶­ ŁıŁ ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ 5æØı æ̶­Ł‑ ¹ ı²ı­º ¹̶ ß© Ø Øº³œ̶ ¹ı²æ ŒØ¹Ø ̶ßÆıº³©³ œØmØ ̶­Ł ŒØ¹Ø ı­ª© ت² Øœ̶‑ tive heights. 5æØ ¬ ص̶œØ­ªØ ©Œ ­©­¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²Ø µ̶ ıØ Œ ©ß ｶ ²© ｱｰ ̶ß©­º ªæıœŁ Ø­ Æز¹ØØ­ ｸ ̶­Ł ｱｳ ½Ø̶ #Ø ­ı­ºØ .ı¾©ø̶¹̶ # ̶ºº ｱｹｹｱ 4ßı² &­ºØœ ß̶­ /ıØßØ̀Ø µ̶­ (̶œØ­ ｲｰｰｱ ̶­Ł ı ̶œ © Øœ̶²ØŁ ²© ºØ­ŁØ ¹ı²æ ß© Ø Æ©½ Œ©³­Ł ²© ÆØ ­©­¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²Ø #Ø ‑ ­ı­ºØ /ıØœ Ø­ "ÆÆ©m 8̀ ß̶­ 3̶ øı­Ł ｲｰｰｸ $æıœŁ Ø­ ¹ı²æ ­©­ ¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ı­ ²Ø ß ©Œ ®³̶œı²½ © ¬ØØŁ 橹 ¹Ø̶øØ Ø ³œ² ı­ ¬Øœœı­º ª©ß¬̶ ØŁ ²© ²æ̶² ©Œ ²æØı ¬ØØ ¹æ© ̶ Ø ¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²Ø (Berninger, et al ｱｹｹｱ ³ªæ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ̶ Ø ı­ ̶ Ł©³ÆœØ ²̶ ø ı²³̶²ı©­ ̶­Ł ß³ ² ¹© ø æ̶ ŁØ ̶ ²æؽ æ̶µØ ²© ²æı­ø ̶Æ©³² 橹 ²© Œ© ß ̶ œØmØ ̶­Ł ̶² ²æØ ̶ßØ ²ıßØ æ©¹ ²© ºØ­Ø ̶²Ø ̶ ¹ ımØ­ ²Ø¼² #Ø ­ı­ºØ 7̶³ºæ̶­ "Æ‑ Æ©² "ÆÆ©² 8©©Ł ³T 3©º̶­ et al ｱｹｹｷ .© Ø©µØ ²Ø̶ªæØ ²Ø­Ł ²© ºıµØ lower marks to papers with poor handwriting than those with good hand‑ ¹ ı²ı­º "œ ²©­ 5̶½œ© ｱｹｸｷ 5Ø̶ªæı­º ̶ ªæıœŁ ²© ÆØ ª©ß¬Ø²Ø­² ı­ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º æØœ¬ ²© ©¬²ıßı¾Ø that child’s results at school and to decrease poor composition results +©­Ø $æ ı ²Ø­ Ø­ ｱｹｹｹ )©¹ØµØ ²æØ ²ıßØ ŁØµ©²ØŁ ²© ²Ø̶ªæı­º æ̶­Ł‑ ¹ ı²ı­º ı­ ̶ ªœ̶ ©©ß ı ©WØ­ ºıµØ­ œ©¹ ¬ ı© ı²½ ı­ ªæ©©œ ª³ ıª³œ̶ ( ̶‑ æ̶ß )̶ ı ̶­Ł 'ı­ø ｲｰｰｰ Œ©³­Ł ²æ̶² ©­Ø ²æı Ł ©Œ ²Ø̶ªæØ ı­²Ø µıØ¹ØŁ ª©ßÆı­ØŁ ²æØ ²Ø̶ªæı­º ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¹ı²æ ©²æØ ª©³ Ø ©­Ø ²æı Ł ŁØ‑ µ©²ØŁ ̶ ¬ØªıRª ª©³ Ø ²© ²æØ ²Ø̶ªæı­º ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ©­ªØ ̶ ¹ØØø ̶­Ł ©­Ø ²æı Ł º̶µØ ©­œ½ ¬ØªıRª ı­ ² ³ª²ı©­ ²© ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¹æ© æ̶Ł ŁıUª³œ²ıØ "ŁŁ Ø ª© Ø ¬©­ŁØ­ªØ ²© .̶ ıØ -̶³ Ø ,̶ı Ø $)67 /& ｵｰｳｵ 1ıØ Ø %تøØ "µØ­³Ø ｵ ｱｰｱｱ -̶³ ̶­­Ø 4¹ı²¾Ø œ̶­Ł © Ø ß̶ıœ ßœø̶ı Ø ØØ ¬ ªæ 1 DOI 10.2466/11.25.PMS.112.2. ISSN 0031‑5125 2 M‑L. KAISER, ET AL. ( ̶æ̶ß )̶ ı .̶ ©­ 'ı­ø $æ© ¾Ø̶߬ .© ̶­ ̶­Ł 4̶ŁŁœØ ｲｰｰｸ æ©¹ØŁ ²æ̶² ｸｸ ©Œ ²Ø̶ªæØ ı­²Ø µıØ¹ØŁ ²æ©³ºæ² ²æ̶² ²æؽ ŁıŁ ­©² æ̶µØ ³UªıØ­² ² ̶ı­ı­º ²© ²Ø̶ªæ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º 8æØ­ ¬©© æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ı ıŁØ­²ıRØŁ ²¹© ²½¬Ø ©Œ ØßØŁı̶²ı©­ ̶ Ø ³ ³̶œœ½ ¬ ©¬© ØŁ 5æØ R ² ©­Ø ı Æ̶ ØŁ ©­ Ø­ © ıß©²© ¬ ©º ̶ß ª̶ ‑ ıØŁ ©³² ƽ ı­ŁıµıŁ³̶œ ²æØ ̶¬ı ² ©³² ıŁØ ²æØ ªæ©©œ ¬ ©º ̶ß -̶ ¾œ© #̶ı ²©¹ ｱｹｸｳ )̶ ı -ıµØ ؽ ｱｹｹｲ 5æØ Øª©­Ł ²½¬Ø ı ̶­ ı­²Ø­ ıµØ handwriting program introduced during school time for a group of chil‑ Ł Ø­ ¹æ© ̶ Ø ̶² ı ø ©Œ ŁØµØœ©¬ı­º ­©­¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ̶­Ł ¹æıªæ ı­ªœ³ŁØ ¬ØªıRª ²Ø̶ªæı­º ̶ª²ıµı²ıØ ³ªæ ̶ ̶œ¬æ̶Æز ı­ºı­º © ¬ ̶ª²ı ı­º œØmØ ̶² ŁıTØ Ø­² ¬ØØŁ #Ø ­ı­ºØ et al ｱｹｹｷ ( ̶æ̶ß et al., 2000; Jong‑ ß̶­ -ı­²æ© ² #̶øøØ 8Ø ²Ø­ÆØ º 4ßı² &­ºØœ ß̶­ ｲｰｰｳ 4²³ŁıØ ¹æıªæ ª©ß¬̶ ØŁ ²æØ ØUª̶ª½ ©Œ ²æØ Ø ²¹© ²½¬Ø ©Œ ØßØŁı̶²ı©­ ²Ø­Ł ²© show that the remedial handwriting program within school seems more ØUªıØ­² ²æ̶­ Ø­ © ıß©²© ²æØ ̶¬ıØ %Ø­²©­ $©¬Ø .© Ø ｲｰｰｶ 8Øı­‑ ² ̶³Æ :ı­©­ )ı ªæ 1̶ ³ æ ｲｰｰｹ "ß©­º æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß ²æØ ¬ ©º ̶ß ²æ̶² ı­ªœ³ŁØ ؼ¬œıª‑ ı² œØ̶ ­ı­º ¹ı²æ µØ Æ̶œ ª³Ø ­̶ßØ ©Œ œØmØ ²æ̶² ß̶½ Ø µØ ̶ ز ıص‑ ̶œ ª³Ø ̶œ © ª©­² ıƳ²Ø ²© ı߬ ©µı­º æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º +©­Ø $æ ı ²Ø­ Ø­ ｱｹｹｹ '³ ²æØ ß© Ø ²æØ µ̶ ı̶²ı©­ ©Œ ¬̶ ̶ßØ²Ø ³ªæ ̶ Œ© ªØ © ¬ØØŁ ©Œ ß©µØßØ­² ı ³ ØŒ³œ ı­ ̶ ı ²ı­º ²æØ œØ̶ ­Ø ı­ ¬̶½ı­º ß© Ø ̶mØ­²ı©­ ²© ²æØ Ø µ̶ ı̶ÆœØ ¬̶ ̶ßØ²Ø +©­ºß̶­ et al ｲｰｰｳ 8æØ­ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ı ²̶³ºæ² ¹ı²æı­ ̶ ßØ̶­ı­ºŒ³œ ª©­²Ø¼² ²æ̶² ̶œœ©¹ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ²© ³ Ø æ̶­Ł‑ writing in a purposeful way, they are more motivated to master the skill (Denton, et al ｲｰｰｶ 'ı­̶œœ½ ²æØ ²ıßØ ŁØµ©²ØŁ ²© ²Ø̶ªæı­º ̶­Ł ²© œØ̶ ­ı­º æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ß³ ² ÆØ ³UªıØ­² Œ© Ø̶ªæ ªæıœŁ ²© Ø̶ªæ ²æØ Ø®³ı ØŁ œØµØœ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ,̶ œ Ł©mı 4²ØŒ̶­ ©­ ｲｰｰｲ %Ø­²©­ et al ｲｰｰｶ 5æØ ©Æ Ø µØŁ ÆØ­ØR² ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß µ̶ ½ Œ ©ß ©­Ø ²³Ł½ ²© ̶­©²æØ 4ØµØ ̶œ ̶³²æ© -©ªø̶ ² -̶¹ ｱｹｹｴ #Ø ­ı­ºØ et al ｱｹｹｷ Jongmans, et al., 2003; Denton, et al ｲｰｰｶ ©Æ Ø µØŁ ²æ̶² ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¹ı²æ ­©­¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º æ©¹ØŁ ıº­ıRª̶­² ı߬ ©µØßØ­² ı­ ²æØ ®³̶œı²½ ©Œ ²æØı æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ̶WØ ̶­ ı­²Ø­ ıµØ ¬ ©º ̶ß )©¹ØµØ +©­ºß̶­ et al ｲｰｰｳ æ©¹ØŁ ²æ̶² ̶ º ©³¬ ¹ı²æ ­©­¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ı߬ ©µØŁ ı­ ®³̶œı²½ Ƴ² ­©² ı­ ¬ØØŁ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¹æØ Ø̶ ̶ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ ©Œ ¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²Ø æ©¹ØŁ ̶ ß© Ø ıº­ıRª̶­² ı­ª Ø̶ Ø ı­ ¬ØØŁ Ƴ² ­©² ı­ ®³̶œı²½ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ØØ ̶œ © -©ªø̶ ² -̶¹ ｱｹｹｴ 8æØ­ ªæıœ‑ dren’s handwriting improves, competences other than handwriting have ÆØØ­ Œ©³­Ł ²© ı߬ ©µØ ̶ ¹Øœœ ³ªæ ̶ ت©º­ı²ı©­ ©Œ œØmØ %Ø­²©­ et al ｲｰｰｶ º ̶ßß̶ ̶­Ł © ²æ©º ̶¬æ½ #Ø ­ı­ºØ et al ｱｹｹｷ ̶­Ł ̶Æıœı²½ ²© ¹ ı²Ø ²© ıØ +©­Ø $æ ı ²Ø­ Ø­ ｱｹｹｹ 'ع ²³ŁıØ æ̶µØ ª©ß¬̶ ØŁ ²æØ ØTت² ©Œ ̶­ ı­²Ø­ ıµØ ¬ ©º ̶ß ŒØ̶²³ ı­º ؼ¬œıªı² œØ̶ ­ı­º ¹ı²æ ²æ© Ø ©Œ ̶ غ³œ̶ ­©­ı­²Ø­ ıµØ ¬ ©º ̶ß Æ̶ ØŁ ©­ ı߬œıªı² œØ̶ ­ı­º 5æØ ØŒ© Ø ²æØ EXPLICIT HANDWRITING PROGRAM 3 ̶ıß ©Œ ²æØ ²³Ł½ ¹Ø Ø ｱ ²© ̶ Ø ²æØ ØTت²ıµØ­Ø ©Œ ̶­ ؼ¬œıªı² æ̶­Ł‑ ¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß ı­² ©Ł³ªØŁ ̶² ²æØ Æغı­­ı­º ©Œ ( ̶ŁØ ｱ ̶­Ł ｲ ²© ª©ß‑ pare the quality of the handwriting of a group who received a program Æ̶ ØŁ ؼªœ³ ıµØœ½ ©­ ²æØ œØ̶ ­ı­º ̶­Ł ³ Ø ©Œ ª³ ıµØ œØmØ Œ ©ß ²æØ Æغı­‑ ning of the school year to the handwriting of a group who had a regular ¬ ©º ̶ß ı­ ¹æıªæ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¬ ı­²ØŁ œØmØ Ł³ ı­º ²æØ R ² ² ıßØ ²Ø ¹æıœØ æ̶µı­º ©­Ø ¹ØØøœ½ œØ ©­ ¹ı²æ ª³ ıµØ œØmØ *² ¹̶ ̶ ³ßØŁ ²æ̶² ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¹æ© Œ©œœ©¹ØŁ ̶­ ؼ¬œıªı² ¬ ©º ̶ß ¹©³œŁ ¬ ©º Ø ıº­ıRª̶­²œ½ ß© Ø ı­ ®³̶œı²½ ̶­Ł ¬ØØŁ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º than the children of the control group who would have the regular pro‑ gram of only one weekly lesson. The handwriting of children from the ؼ¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ ¹©³œŁ æ̶µØ ıº­ıRª̶­²œ½ ŒØ¹Ø ̶ßÆıº³©³ œØmØ ª© ت²ı©­ ©Œ œØmØ Œ© ß ̶­Ł ı غ³œ̶ ı²ıØ ı­ ł©ı­ı­º ² ©øØ ²æ̶­ ²æØ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ©Œ ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ 5æØ ¬ØØŁ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º Œ ©ß ²æØ Ø¼‑ ¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ ¹©³œŁ ÆØ ıº­ıRª̶­²œ½ Œ̶ ²Ø ²æ̶­ ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ Mньрчм Participants The research took place in a regular school from a rural part of the ' Ø­ªæ ¬̶ ² ©Œ 4¹ı²¾Ø œ̶­Ł ( ̶ŁØ ｱ Æغı­ ̶WØ ²¹© ½Ø̶ ©Œ øı­ŁØ º̶ ‑ ²Ø­ ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ œØ̶ ­ ²© Ø̶Ł ̶­Ł ²© ¹ ı²Ø Ł³ ı­º ²æı R ² ½Ø̶ ©Œ ¬ ıß̶‑ ½ ªæ©©œ 5æ ØØ ( ̶ŁØ ｱ ªœ̶ Ø Œ ©ß ̶ غ³œ̶ ¬³Æœıª ªæ©©œ ¬̶ ²ıªı¬̶²ØŁ ©­ ̶ µ©œ³­²̶ ½ Æ̶ ı ( ̶ŁØ ｱ ªæıœŁ Ø­ n ｲｳ ｶ ｱ ²© ｷ ｳ ½Ø̶ ©œŁ Œ ©ß ²¹© ªœ̶ Ø ª©­ ²ı²³²ØŁ ²æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ ¹ı²æ ｱｵ Æ©½ ̶­Ł ｸ ºı œ The control group (n ｱｹ ¹̶ ª©ß¬© ØŁ ©Œ ｸ ºı œ ̶­Ł ｱｱ Æ©½ Œ ©ß ©­Ø ªœ̶ /© ŁıTØ Ø­ªØ ı­ ²æØ ²Ø̶ªæı­º ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º Æز¹ØØ­ ²æØ ²Ø̶ªæØ ¹Ø Ø ©Æ Ø µØŁ *­ ²æØ ªæ©©œ ½ ²Øß ¹æØ Ø ²æØ Ø Ø̶ ªæ ²©©ø ¬œ̶ªØ ı² ¹̶ ­©² ¬© ıÆœØ Œ© ²æØ ¬̶ Ø­² ²© ªæ©© Ø ²æØ ªæ©©œ © ²Ø̶ªæØ ©Œ ²æØı ªæıœŁ 5æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¹Ø Ø ̶œœ S³Ø­² ' Ø­ªæ ¬Ø̶øØ ̶­Ł ²æؽ ª̶ßØ Œ ©ß ²æØ ̶ßØ øı­ŁØ º̶ ²Ø­ ¹æıªæ ¬ ©µıŁØ ̶­ ıŁØ­²ıª̶œ ¬ غ ̶¬æı ß ¬ ©º ̶ß 5æØ ©Æ‑ łØª²ıµØ ©Œ ²æı ¬ ©º ̶ß ¹Ø Ø ²© Æت©ßØ Œ̶ßıœı̶ ¹ı²æ ŁıTØ Ø­² º ̶¬æıª̶œ tools, to master movements for graphism, and to learn how to draw dif‑ ŒØ Ø­² æ̶¬Ø ³ªæ ̶ ªı ªœØ ̶­Ł µØ ²ıª̶œ ̶­Ł æ© ı¾©­²̶œ œı­Ø ̶ ¹Øœœ ̶ Łı‑ agonals. All the children in these classes participated in the study with the ¹ ımØ­ ª©­ Ø­² ©Œ ²æØı ¬̶ Ø­² ¹æ© ¹Ø Ø ı­Œ© ßØŁ ²æ̶² ²æؽ ª©³œŁ ¹ı²æ‑ draw their children at any time during the research. Measure As the children had not learnt during kindergarten how to write let‑ ²Ø ­© æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ص̶œ³̶²ı©­ ¹̶ ¬© ıÆœØ ̶² ²æØ Æغı­­ı­º ©Œ ( ̶ŁØ ｱ 5æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ ̶­Ł ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ ¹Ø Ø ̶ Ø ØŁ Œ© ¬ØØŁ ̶­Ł Œ© quality with the French version of the BHK‑Concise Assessment Scale for Children’s Handwriting (Charles, Soppeœ ̶ "œÆ̶ ز ｲｰｰｳ ²¹© ß©­²æ 4 M‑L. KAISER, ET AL. ̶WØ ²æØ Ø­Ł ©Œ ²æØ Ø¼¬œıªı² ¬ ©º ̶ß *­ ²æı ²Ø ² ²æØ ªæıœŁ ı ©­œ½ ̶ øØŁ ²© ª©¬½ ̶ ²Ø¼² Œ© ｵ ßı­ ı­ ª³ ıµØ œØmØ 5æØ R ² RµØ œı­Ø ̶ Ø ̶­̶œ½ ØŁ ı­ ²æØ ̶ Ø ßØ­² ¬ ©ªØ ³ ı­º ｱｳ ª ı²Ø ı̶ ｱ œØmØ ı¾Ø ｲ œØW ß̶ ‑ ºı­ ¹ıŁØ­ı­º ｳ ¬©© ¹© Ł ̶œıº­ßØ­² ｴ ı­ ³UªıØ­² ¹© Ł ¬̶ªı­º ｵ ̶ª³²Ø ²³ ­ ı­ ª©­­Øª²ı­º œØmØ © ©µØ œ½ œ©­º ª©­­Øª²ı©­ ｶ ­© ł©ı­ı­º ² ©øØ ｷ ª©œœı ı©­ ©Œ œØmØ ｸ ı­ª©­ ı ²Ø­² œØmØ ı¾Ø ｹ ı­ª© ت² Øœ‑ ̶²ıµØ æØıºæ² ©Œ œØmØ ｱｰ œØmØ Łı ²© ²ı©­ ｱｱ ̶ßÆıº³©³ œØmØ Œ© ß ｱｲ ª© ت²ı©­ ©Œ ²æØ œØmØ ̶­Ł ｱｳ ³­ ²Ø̶Ł½ ¹ ı²ı­º ² ̶ªØ &̶ªæ ª ı²Ø‑ ı©­ ı ºıµØ­ ̶ ̶²ı­º Œ ©ß ¾Ø © ²© RµØ ²æØ ØŒ© Ø ²æØ ®³̶œı²½ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²‑ ı­º ß̶½ ̶­ºØ Œ ©ß Æز¹ØØ­ ｰ ¹© ² ̶­Ł ｶｵ ÆØ ² '© ªæıœŁ Ø­ ı­ ( ̶ŁØ ｱ ̶ ª© Ø ³­ŁØ ｲｰ ßØ̶­ ­© ŁıUª³œ²½ ̶ ª© Ø Æز¹ØØ­ ｲｱ ̶­Ł ｲｸ ıº­ı‑ RØ ¬©© æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ̶­Ł ̶ ª© Ø ̶² © ̶Æ©µØ ｲｹ µØ ½ ¬©© æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º $©­ªØ ­ı­º ²æØ ¬ØØŁ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ²æØ ­³ßÆØ ©Œ œØmØ ¹ ımØ­ Ł³ ‑ ı­º ²æØ ｵ ßı­ ¬Ø ı©Ł ı ª©³­²ØŁ ²æØ ßØ̶­ ı ｱｷｰ œØmØ ̶­Ł ̶ ª© Ø ²¹© ²̶­Ł̶ Ł ŁØµı̶²ı©­ ÆØœ©¹ ²æØ ßØ̶­ ı ｸｲ ｱ œØmØ 5æØ ı­²Ø ̶²Ø Øœı̶Æıœı‑ ²½ Œ© ²æØ #), ı ｹｰ ̶­Ł ²æØ ª©­ª³ Ø­² µ̶œıŁı²½ ¹ı²æ ²Ø̶ªæØ ł³ŁºØßØ­² ı ｶｸ ¬ ｰｱ $æ̶ œØ et al ｲｰｰｳ Procedure 5æØ R ² ̶³²æ© ©Œ ²æı ¬̶¬Ø ̶œ©­º ¹ı²æ ²¹© ²³ŁØ­² ² ̶ı­ı­º ı­ ©ª‑ cupational therapy, administered the additional program of two 45‑min. ¹ØØøœ½ Ø ı©­ Œ© ̶ ¬Ø ı©Ł ©Œ ı¼ ¹ØØø Handwriting Programs 5æØ ©ÆłØª²ıµØ ©Œ ²æØ ¬ ©º ̶ß ¹Ø Ø ²© ŁØµØœ©¬ Łıºı²̶œ ŁØ¼²Ø ı²½ ²© ¬ ©µıŁØ ²æØ ªæıœŁ ¹ı²æ ؼ¬œıªı² œØ̶ ­ı­º ³ ı­º ²æØ ŁØµØœ©¬ßØ­² ©Œ œØ̶ ­‑ ı­º ² ̶²ØºıØ ³ªæ ̶ ̶³²© ص̶œ³̶²ı©­ ̶­²ıªı¬̶²ı©­ © µØ Æ̶œı¾̶²ı©­ ̶­Ł to practice endurance and speed. A review of the literature was carried ©³² ²© ıŁØ­²ıŒ½ ²æØ ß© ² ØTت²ıµØ ßØ²æ©Ł Œ© ²Ø̶ªæı­º ̶­Ł œØ̶ ­ı­º æ̶­Ł‑ ¹ ı²ı­º &̶ªæ Ø ı©­ ¹̶ ª©ß¬© ØŁ ©Œ RµØ ¬̶ ² 5æØ R ² ¬̶ ² ²̶ ²ØŁ ¹ı²æ Łıºı²̶œ ŁØ¼²Ø ı²½ Ø¼Ø ªı Ø ̶ Łıºı²̶œ ŁØ¼²Ø ı²½ ı ̶ ¬ ØŁıª²ıµØ Œ̶ª²© ı­ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ®³̶œı²½ $© ­æıœœ $̶ Ø 4ßı²æ ｱｹｹｶ ̶ß©­º ̶ º ©³¬ ©Œ ( ̶ŁØ ｱ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ª©ß¬© ØŁ ©Œ ¬ ©RªıØ­² ̶­Ł ­©­¬ ©RªıØ­² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²Ø ı­ ̶ º ©³¬ ©Œ ｱｰ ½Ø̶ ©œŁ ªæıœŁ Ø­ 8Øı­² ̶³Æ ( ̶æ̶ß ｲｰｰｰ 4ØµØ ̶œ ı­ hand manipulations were practiced, such as sequential opposition of dig‑ ı² © ² ̶­ œ̶²ı©­ ß©µØßØ­² ©Œ RµØ ß̶œœ ©ÆłØª² ©­Ø ̶WØ ̶­©²æØ Œ ©ß ²æØ R­ºØ ²ı¬ ²© ²æØ ¬̶œß © Œ ©ß ²æØ ¬̶œß ²© ²æØ R­ºØ ²ı¬ During the second part of the program, the usefulness of handwriting ¹̶ ̶œ © Łı ª³ ØŁ ¹ı²æ ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ " ¬ ©¬© ØŁ ƽ %Ø­²©­ et al ｲｰｰｶ ̶ ßØ̶­ı­ºŒ³œ ª©­²Ø¼² ¹̶ ¬ ©µıŁØŁ Œ© ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¹æ© ¹Ø Ø ̶ øØŁ ¹æ½ it was important to learn handwriting. They were also given the task of writing short sentences for their classmates to read. The children were in‑ ² ³ª²ØŁ ²© ß̶øØ œı­ø Æز¹ØØ­ ¹ ımØ­ œØmØ ̶­Ł ¬æ©­©œ©ºıª̶œ ©³­Ł Author: Is this correct? 65 is best, but a score above 29 is poorer handwriting than 20. Please clarify. EXPLICIT HANDWRITING PROGRAM 5 (Denton, et al ｲｰｰｶ 5æؽ ¹Ø Ø ²æØ­ Ø­ª©³ ̶ºØŁ ²© R­Ł ¹© Ł ²æ̶² ª©­‑ ²̶ı­ØŁ ²æØ œØmØ ÆØı­º œØ̶ ­² © ²© Ø­³­ªı̶²Ø ̶œœ ²æØ ¬© ıÆœØ ©³­Ł Œ© ©­Ø œØmØ %³ ı­º ²æØ ²æı Ł ¬̶ ² ©Œ ²æØ ¬ ©º ̶ß ²æØ ²Ø̶ªæı­º ©Œ œØmØ ¹̶ ª̶ ıØŁ ©³² " ²æØ œØmØ ̶ ª Ł º ® © æ̶Ł ̶œ Ø̶Ł½ ÆØØ­ œØ̶ ­² ƽ ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ Ł³ ı­º ²æØ ¹ØØø ¬ ØªØŁı­º ²æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­² ²æØ Œ©œœ©¹ı­º œØmØ ¹Ø Ø ¬ Ø‑ Ø­²ØŁ Ø œ æ ø Œ Æ ı ² ³ µ ¹ ł ½ ß ­ ¬ ¼ ¾ %³ ı­º Ø̶ªæ Ø ı©­ ²¹© © ²æ ØØ œØmØ ¹Ø Ø œØ̶ ­² ©­œ½ ı­ ª³ ıµØ ²½œØ 5æØ Ø Ø̶ ªæØ ̶Łßı­‑ istering the additional program modeled the movements required for writ‑ ı­º Ø̶ªæ ²̶ ºØ² œØmØ ¹æıœØ ¬ ©µıŁı­º ؼ¬œ̶­̶²ı©­ ̶Æ©³² ²æØ Łı ت²ı©­̶œ ² ©øØ ©Œ ²æØ œØmØ " ßØ­²ı©­ØŁ ƽ +©­Ø ̶­Ł $æ ı ²Ø­ Ø­ ｱｹｹｹ ؼ¬œ̶‑ ­̶²ı©­ ¬ ©µıŁØŁ ¹ı²æ ß©ŁØœı­º ̶ Ø ß© Ø ØTت²ıµØ ²æ̶­ ؼ¬œ̶­̶²ı©­ © ß©ŁØœı­º ̶œ©­Ø " ı­ ²æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­² ª©­Ł³ª²ØŁ ƽ #Ø ­ı­ºØ et al ｱｹｹｷ Ø̶ªæ ªæıœŁ æ̶Ł ²æØ ß©ŁØœ ©Œ ²æØ œØmØ ı­ Œ ©­² ©Œ æıß ¹ı²æ ̶ ©¹ ı­Łıª̶²‑ ı­º ²æØ Łı ت²ı©­ ̶­Ł ı­ ² ³ª²ı©­ ı­ ² ³ª²ı©­ ²© ßØß© ı¾Ø 橹 ²© ¹ ı²Ø ı² %³ ı­º ²æØ Œ©³ ²æ ¬̶ ² ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¬ ̶ª²ı ØŁ ²æØ œØmØ ©­ ¹æı²Ø ¬̶¬Ø µ̶ ½ı­º ¬ØØŁ ̶­Ł ı¾Ø ̶­Ł ²æØ­ ²æؽ ¹ ©²Ø ı² ©­ ̶ ¬̶ºØ ²æ̶² ª©­²̶ı­ØŁ ̶ ß©ŁØœ ©Œ ²æØ œØmØ 5æؽ ¹Ø Ø ̶ÆœØ ²© ² ½ ©³² ŁıTØ Ø­² øı­Ł ©Œ ¬Ø­ ̶­Ł pencils. /ؼ² ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¹Ø Ø ºıµØ­ ̶ ßز̶ª©º­ı²ıµØ ²̶ ø ̶ ŁØ ª ıÆØŁ ƽ Jongmans, et al ｲｰｰｳ ²æؽ ̶­̶œ½¾ØŁ ²æØı æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ²© ıŁØ­²ıŒ½ ²æØ ŁıTØ Ø­ªØ Æز¹ØØ­ ²æØı ©¹­ ¬ ©Ł³ª²ı©­ ̶­Ł ²æØ ß©ŁØœ &̶ªæ ªæıœŁ ؼ‑ ¬œ̶ı­ØŁ ²© ²æØ Ø Ø̶ ªæØ ¹æØ Ø æØ æ©³œŁ ¬̶½ ̶mØ­²ı©­ ²æØ ­Ø¼² ²ıßØ æØ ¹ ©²Ø ²æØ œØmØ )Ø ²æØ­ ıŁØ­²ıRØŁ ²æØ ÆØ ² ¹ ımØ­ œØmØ ̶­Ł ¬³² ̶ ²ıªøØ under it. The regular school program includes 40 min. each week of handwrit‑ ı­º ¹æıªæ ı­µ©œµØ ¬ ̶ª²ı ı­º ²¹© © ²æ ØØ œØmØ ı­ ̶ ­©²ØÆ©©ø 5æØ ªæıœ‑ Ł Ø­ ̶ Ø ̶ øØŁ ²© ª©¬½ ²æØ œØmØ ØµØ ̶œ ²ıßØ ²æØ­ ²© ª©¬½ ¹© Ł ²æ̶² ª©­²̶ı­ ²æ© Ø œØmØ )©¹ØµØ Ł³ ı­º ²æØ R ² ² ıßØ ²Ø ©Œ ²æØ ªæ©©œ ½Ø̶ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ß³ ² ¹ ı²Ø ¹ı²æ ¬ ı­² œØmØ ı Ø ı­ ²æØ ²½œØ ©Œ ¬ ı­²ØŁ ß̶‑ ²Ø ı̶œ ³ªæ ̶ Æ©©ø © ­Ø¹ ¬̶¬Ø Œ© ̶œœ ²æØı ¹ ımØ­ ¹© ø *² 橳œŁ ÆØ ¬©ı­²ØŁ ©³² ²æ̶² ªØ ²̶ı­ ¬ ı­² œØmØ ̶ Ø ­©² Œ© ßØŁ ı­ ²æØ ̶ßØ ¹̶½ ı­ ª³ ıµØ ¹ ı²ı­º Æ Œ æ ø œ ¬ µ ¹ ¼ ¾ 5æı ¬ ̶ª²ıªØ ı ²½¬ıª̶œ ©Œ ß© ² teachers from the state where the research took place. It has no particular ²æØ© زıª̶œ Æ̶ ı Analysis A t test for independent groups was performed for comparisons of the ²¹© º ©³¬ ©­ ®³̶œı²½ ̶­Ł ¬ØØŁ µ̶ ı̶ÆœØ ̶² ¬© mØ ² ¹ı²æ 4144 7Ø ı©­ ｱｳ 4ıº­ıRª̶­ªØ ¹̶ ز ̶² p ｰｵ Rныэфьы '© ²æØ ®³̶œı²½ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ©­ ²æØ #), ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ Œ ©ß ²æØ Ø¼‑ 6 M‑L. KAISER, ET AL. ¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ æ̶Ł ̶ ßØ̶­ ©Œ ｱｷ ｱ SD ｷ ｲ ̶­Ł ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ Œ ©ß ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ æ̶Ł ̶ ßØ̶­ ©Œ ｲｴ ｷ SD ｷ ｰ '© ²æØ ¬ØØŁ ©Œ æ̶­Ł‑ ¹ ı²ı­º ²æØ ßØ̶­ ©Œ ²æØ Ø¼¬œıªı² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß º ©³¬ ¹̶ ｵｵ ｷ (SD ｱｹ ｷ œØmØ ı­ ｵ ßı­ ¹æıœØ ²æØ ßØ̶­ ©Œ ²æØ Øº³œ̶ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß º ©³¬ ¹̶ ｴｰ ｷ ｱｸ ｶ 5æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ ¬Ø Œ© ßØŁ ıº­ıRª̶­²œ½ ÆØmØ ©­ ¬ØØŁ ̶­Ł ®³̶œı²½ ²æ̶­ ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ %ıTØ Ø­ªØ Æز¹ØØ­ ı²Øß ©Œ ²æØ #), æ©¹ØŁ ıº­ıRª̶­²œ½ ŒØ¹Ø ı غ³œ̶ ı²ıØ ı­ ł©ı­ı­º ² ©øØ ÆØmØ ¹© Ł ̶œıº­ßØ­² ŒØ¹Ø ̶ßÆıº³©³ œØmØ ̶­Ł ŒØ¹Ø ª© ت²ı©­ ©Œ œØmØ Œ© ²æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ ²æ̶­ Œ© ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ 5̶ÆœØ ｱ TABLE 1 .нйц %соонънцлн йцм t 5ныь 'чъ ьрн &亜шнъсхнцьйф & n ｲｳ йцм $чцьъчф (C; n ｱｹ (ъчэшы чц #), *ьнхы .нйыэъсцп )йцмяъсьсцп 4усффы Items BHK -ØmØ Group M SD E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C 1.91 2.21 ｰ ｷｸ ｰ ｸｴ 3.53 4.46 ｱ ｸｰ ｲ ｷｱ 1.46 1.32 3.41 ｴ ｵｷ 0.11 0.26 ｱ ｷｹ 2.64 0.92 2.42 1.45 ｲ ｶｸ 0.65 0.50 0.00 ｰ ｰｸ ｱｷ ｰｷ ｲｴ ｷｰ 55.65 ｴｰ ｵｸ 1.39 ｱ ｷｹ 0.90 ｱ ｶｷ 1.54 0.95 1.62 1.95 1.54 1.63 1.40 ｰ ｷｸ 0.36 1.14 1.45 ｱ ｷｲ 1.26 2.26 1.52 1.14 0.99 ｰ ｸｵ 0.00 0.34 ｷ ｲｱ ｶ ｹｷ ｱｹ ｷｰ ｱｸ ｶｳ ı¾Ø -ØW ß̶ ºı­ ¹ıŁØ­ı­º Poor word alignment *­ ³UªıØ­² ¹© Ł ¬̶ªı­º "ª³²Ø ²³ ­ © ²©© œ©­º ł©ı­ı­º * غ³œ̶ ı²ıØ ı­ ł©ı­ı­º ² ©øØ $©œœı ı©­ ©Œ œØmØ *­ª©­ ı ²Ø­² œØmØ ı¾Ø *­ª© ت² Øœ̶²ıµØ æØıºæ² ©Œ œØmØ "ßÆıº³©³ œØmØ Œ© ß $© ت²ı©­ ©Œ œØmØ Œ© ß Unsteady writing trace 5©²̶œ ª© Ø ®³̶œı²½ Speed MD df t d 0.30 40 0.61 0.19 0.06 40 0.14 0.04 0.93 ｳｷ ｳｹ ｲ ｳｸ ｰ ｶｷ 0.90 35.01 1.64 0.49 0.14 40 ｰ ｲｸ 0.09 1.15 35.54 3.36† ｰ ｸｹ 0.15 40 0.61 ｰ ｱｸ ｰ ｸｵ 40 ｱ ｷｱ 0.52 1.50 ｲｶ ｹｷ ｲ ｵｶ ｰ ｷｸ 1.23 40 ｲ ｷｰ ｰ ｷｷ 0.15 40 0.52 0.16 ｰ ｰｸ ｱｸ 1.00 0.34 ｷ ｶｱ 41 ｳ ｴｸ† ｰ ｳｷ ｱｵ ｰｷ 40 2.52† 2.03 Note.—Ł $©æØ­ d ¬ .05. †¬ .01. Dсылэыысчц 5¹© ß©­²æ ̶WØ æ̶µı­º تØıµØŁ ²æØ Ø¼¬œıªı² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß ²æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¹æ© æ̶Ł ²̶øØ­ ¬̶ ² æ©¹ØŁ ̶ ÆØmØ ®³̶œı²½ ı­ ²æØı æ̶­Ł¹ ı²‑ EXPLICIT HANDWRITING PROGRAM ｷ ing than that of the control group. The main results of this study support‑ ØŁ ²æØ Ø ³œ² ©Œ ØµØ ̶œ ©²æØ ²³ŁıØ -©ªø̶ ² -̶¹ ｱｹｹｴ #Ø ­ı­ºØ et al ｱｹｹｷ %Ø­²©­ et al ｲｰｰｶ " 潬©²æØ ı¾ØŁ ²æØ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ©Œ ²æØ Ø¼‑ ¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ ª©­²̶ı­ØŁ ıº­ıRª̶­²œ½ ŒØ¹Ø ̶ßÆıº³©³ œØmØ ŒØ¹Ø ª© ت²ı©­ ©Œ œØmØ Œ© ß ̶­Ł ı غ³œ̶ ı²ıØ ı­ ł©ı­ı­º ² ©øØ ̶­Ł ̶ Æز‑ ²Ø ̶œıº­ßØ­² ©Œ œØmØ ²æ̶­ ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º 5æØ ªæıœŁ Ø­ Œ ©ß ²æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ ¬ ©Æ̶Æœ½ æ̶Ł ÆØmØ ª©­² ©œ ©µØ ²æØ ß©µØ‑ ßØ­² ­ØØŁØŁ ²© ¬Ø Œ© ß æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º Æت̶³ Ø ¹æ̶² ŁıTØ Ø­²ı̶²ØŁ ²æØ ²¹© º ©³¬ ¹̶ ²æØ ®³̶œı²½ ©Œ ²æØ ² ̶ªØ ł©ı­ı­º ² ©øØ ̶­Ł ̶œıº­ßØ­² ©Œ œØmØ " ²æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­²̶œ º ©³¬ ¬ Ø Ø­²ØŁ ŒØ¹Ø ̶ßÆıº³©³ œØmØ ̶­Ł ª© ت²ı©­ ©Œ Œ© ß ²æ̶­ ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ ı² ª©³œŁ ÆØ ¬© ²³œ̶²ØŁ ²æ̶² ²æؽ æ̶Ł ŁØµØœ©¬ØŁ ̶ ÆØmØ ºØ­Ø ̶œ ß©²© ¬ ©º ̶ß Œ© Œ© ßı­º œØmØ 4ßı² &­ºØœ ß̶­ 7̶­ (̶œØ­ ｱｹｹｷ ¹æıªæ ª©­R ß ²æ̶² ¹æØ­ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ̶ Ø ºıµØ­ ²æØ ©¬¬© ²³­ı²½ ²© ̶­̶œ½¾Ø ²æØı ¹ ımØ­ ¬ ©Ł³ª²ı©­ ̶­Ł ²© ¬Ø̶ø ¹ı²æ ©ßØ©­Ø ̶Æ©³² ²æØß ²æؽ ª̶­ ı߬ ©µØ ²æØı ß©²© ¬ ©º ̶ß " ı­ +©­Ø ̶­Ł $æ ı ²Ø­ Ø­ ｱｹｹｹ ¹ ı²ı­º ¬ØØŁ ¹̶ Œ̶ ²Ø Œ© ²æØ Ø¼¬Ø ıßØ­‑ ²̶œ º ©³¬ ²æ̶­ Œ© ²æØ ª©­² ©œ º ©³¬ )©¹ØµØ ²æı Ø ³œ² ŁıTØ ØŁ Œ ©ß ²æ© Ø ©Œ ²¹© ²³ŁıØ ¹æıªæ ŁıŁ ­©² R­Ł ̶­½ ıº­ıRª̶­² Ø ³œ² ı­ ²Ø ß ©Œ ¬ØØŁ -©ªø̶ ² -̶¹ ｱｹｹｴ +©­ºß̶­ et al ｲｰｰｳ " ßØ­²ı©­ØŁ ı­ ß©²© œØ̶ ­ı­º ²æØ© ½ 8³œŒ 4æØ̶ -ع²æ¹̶ı²Ø ｲｰｱｰ ؼ¬œıªı² œØ̶ ­ı­º ̶­Ł ØœŒ ª©­² ©œœØŁ ¬ ̶ª²ıªØ ØØß ²© ı­S³Ø­ªØ ²æØ Æ³ıœŁı­º ©Œ ̶ ß©²© ¬ ©º ̶ß ̶­Ł ²© ÆØ ©¬²ıß̶œ ¹æØ­ ª©ßÆı­ØŁ ¹ı²æ ²æØ ¬Ø Œ© ß̶­ªØ ©Œ ²æØ ß©µØßØ­² 5æØ Ø ³œ² ª©­R ß ²æı 潬©²æØ ı ̶­Ł ³¬¬© ² ²æØ ı­² ©Ł³ª²ı©­ ©Œ ̶ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß ª©­²̶ı­ı­º ؼ¬œıªı² learning as well as self‑instruction and self‑evaluation. " ªæıœŁ Ø­ ̶ Ø Ø®³ı ØŁ ²© ¹ ı²Ø Œ ©ß ²æØ Æغı­­ı­º ©Œ ( ̶ŁØ ｱ ı² ¹©³œŁ ØØß ØœØµ̶­² ²© ı­² ©Ł³ªØ ̶­ ؼ¬œıªı² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß ²© ıß‑ prove skills that would lead to an improvement in all activities requiring æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º " ßØ­²ı©­ØŁ ƽ ( ̶æ̶ß et al ｲｰｰｰ ı­² ©Ł³ªı­º ̶­ ̶ŁŁı‑ tional handwriting program and allowing more time for children to learn ²æØ Ø øıœœ ª©³œŁ ¬ صح² Œ³ ²æØ ŁıUª³œ²ıØ ı­ Æ©²æ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ̶­Ł ı­ tasks that involve writing. Although the design of this study could not include a pretest evalua‑ ²ı©­ ²æØ ıº­ıRª̶­² ŁıTØ Ø­ªØ ª̶­ ÆØ Ø¼¬œ̶ı­ØŁ ƽ ²æØ ı­S³Ø­ªØ ©Œ ²æØ ̶Ł‑ Łı²ı©­̶œ ¬ ©º ̶ß Ł³Ø ²© ²æØ ıº­ıRª̶­² ŁıTØ Ø­ªØ Æز¹ØØ­ ²æØ ²¹© º ©³¬ ı­µ©œµı­º ı²Øß ²æ̶² Ø®³ı Ø ÆØmØ ß̶ ²Ø ½ ©Œ ß©µØßØ­² ̶²æØ ²æ̶­ ²æØ Ø ³œ² ©Œ œØmØ ²æ̶² ª©³œŁ æ̶µØ ÆØØ­ ² ̶ı­ØŁ ̶² æ©ßØ 5æı ²³Ł½ 橳œŁ ıŁØ̶œœ½ ÆØ Ø¬Ø̶²ØŁ ı­ ŁıTØ Ø­² ª©­²Ø¼² Ø ¬Øªı̶œœ½ ¹ı²æ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ̶² ı ø ©Œ ŁØµØœ©¬ı­º æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ŁıUª³œ²ıØ -©­ºØ ²Ø ß Œ©œœ©¹ ³¬ 橳œŁ ÆØ conducted to assess whether the initial progress is maintained. The re‑ ³œ² ©Œ ²æØ ¬ Ø Ø­² ²³Ł½ ı­Łıª̶²Ø ²æ̶² ̶­ ؼ¬œıªı² æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß ̶² ²æØ Æغı­­ı­º ©Œ ²æØ R ² ªæ©©œ ½Ø̶ ª©­² ıƳ²Ø ²© ²æØ ß̶ ²Ø ı­º ©Œ ｸ M‑L. KAISER, ET AL. Æ©²æ ®³̶œı²½ ̶­Ł ¬ØØŁ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º 5æØ ̶³²©ß̶²ı¾̶²ı©­ ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²‑ ı­º ª©³œŁ Œ ØØ ̶mØ­²ı©­ ̶­Ł ¹© øı­º ßØß© ½ ̶œœ©¹ı­º æıºæØ ̶ªæıصØ‑ ment of other academic requirements. REFERENCES "фыьчц + 5й唖фчъ + ｱｹｸｷ Handwriting: theory, research and practice. London: Croom Helm. #нъцсцпнъ 7 .с娃чуйяй % #ъйпп 3 ｱｹｹｱ 5æØ© ½ Æ̶ ØŁ Łı̶º­© ı ̶­Ł ØßØ‑ diation of writing. Journal of School Psychology, ｲｹ ｵｷ ｵｹ #нъцсцпнъ 7 7йэпрйц , # "ккчь 3 % "ккчь 4 1 8ччмъэоо 3чпйц - #ъччуы A., 3ннм & ｱｹｹｷ 5 Ø̶²ßØ­² ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©ÆœØß ı­ Æغı­­ı­º ¹ ı²Ø transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, ｸｹ 652‑666. #нъцсцпнъ 7 8 /снфынц , ) "ккчьь 3 % 8碓ыхйц & 3йыусцм 8 ｲｰｰｸ 8 ı²‑ ı­º ¬ ©ÆœØß ı­ ŁØµØœ©¬ßØ­²̶œ Ł½ œØ¼ı̶ ³­ŁØ ت©º­ı¾ØŁ ̶­Ł ³­ŁØ ² Ø̶²ØŁ Journal of School Psychology, 46, 1‑21. $рйъфны . 4чшшнфый 3 "фкйънь + . ｲｰｰｳ BHK–Echelle d’évaluation rapide de l’écriture chez l’enfant. Paris: Editions et Applications Psychologiques. $чъцрсфф ) $йын 4хсьр + ｱｹｹｶ '̶ª²© ²æ̶² Øœ̶²Ø º©©Ł ̶­Ł ¬©© æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, ｵｰ ｷｳｲ ｷｳｹ %нцьчц 1 - $чшн 4 .чынъ $ ｲｰｰｶ 5æØ ØTت² ©Œ Ø­ © ıß©²© Æ̶ ØŁ ı­²Ø ‑ vention versus therapeutic practice on improving handwriting performance in 6‑ to 11‑year‑old children. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, ｶｰ ｱｶ ｲｷ (ъйрйх ( )йъъсы - .йычц - 'сцу $рчъ娃нхшй # .чъйц 4 4йммфнъ # ｲｰｰｸ )©¹ Ł© ¬ ıß̶ ½ º ̶ŁØ ²Ø̶ªæØ ²Ø̶ªæ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º " ­̶²ı©­̶œ ³ µØ½ Reading and Writing: an Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 49‑69. (ъйрйх 4 )йъъсы , 3 'сцу # ｲｰｰｰ * æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ª̶³ ̶œœ½ Øœ̶²ØŁ ²© œØ̶ ­‑ ı­º ²© ¹ ı²Ø 5 Ø̶²ßØ­² ©Œ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©ÆœØß ı­ Æغı­­ı­º ¹ ı²Ø Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620‑633. )йъъсы 4 + -сюнын唖 % + ｱｹｹｲ *߬ ©µı­º æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ²æ ©³ºæ øı­̶Ø ²æزıª Ø­‑ sitivity practice. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, ｳｹ ｲｳ ｲｷ +чцны % $ръсыьнцынц $ " ｱｹｹｹ 3Øœ̶²ı©­ Æز¹ØØ­ ̶³²©ß̶²ıªı²½ ı­ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ̶­Ł ²³ŁØ­² ̶Æıœı²½ ²© ºØ­Ø ̶²Ø ¹ ımØ­ ²Ø¼² Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44‑49. +чцпхйцы . -сцьрчъыь #йуунъ & 8ныьнцкнъп : 4хсьы &цпнфыхйц # $ . (2003 6 Ø ©Œ ̶ ²̶ ø © ıØ­²ØŁ ØœŒ ı­ ² ³ª²ı©­ ßØ²æ©Ł ²© ³¬¬© ² ªæıœŁ Ø­ ı­ ¬ ı‑ mary school with poor handwriting quality and speed. Human Movement Science, 22, 549‑566. ,йъфымчььсъ 3 4ьнойцыычц 5 ｲｰｰｲ 1 ©ÆœØß ı­ ŁØµØœ©¬ı­º Œ³­ª²ı©­̶œ æ̶­Ł‑ writing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 623‑662. -йы娃фч + * #йсъыьчя 1 + ｱｹｸｳ ,ı­̶Ø ²æØ ı ı² ßØ̶ ³ ØßØ­² ² ̶ı­ı­º ̶­Ł Øœ̶‑ tionship to motor control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 411‑421. -члуйъь + -йя . ｱｹｹｴ 5æØ ØTت²ıµØ­Ø ©Œ ̶ ß³œ²ı Ø­ © ½ ¹ ı²ı­º ¬ ©º ̶ß Œ© ı߬ ©µı­º ª³ ıµØ ¹ ı²ı­º ̶Æıœı²½ ı­ ªæıœŁ Ø­ ¹ı²æ Ø­ © ı ß©²© ŁıUª³œ²ıØ Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 206‑215. 4хсьы &цпнфыхйц # $ . /снхн碓нъ " 4 юйц (йфнц ( 1 ｲｰｰｱ 'ı­Ø ß©²© ŁØRªıØ­ªıØ ı­ ªæıœŁ Ø­ Łı̶º­© ØŁ ̶ %$% Æ̶ ØŁ ©­ ¬©© º ̶¬æ© ß©²© ̶Æıœı²½ Human Movement Science, ｲｰ ｱｶｱ ｱｸｲ EXPLICIT HANDWRITING PROGRAM 9 4хсьы &цпнфыхйц # $ . 7йц (йфнц ( 1 ｱｹｹｷ %½ º ̶¬æı̶ ı­ ªæıœŁ Ø­ œ̶ ²ı­º ¬ ½ªæ©ß©²© ŁØRªıØ­ª½ © ² ̶­ ıØ­² ŁØµØœ©¬ßØ­²̶œ ŁØœ̶½ Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, ｶｷ ｱｶｴ ｱｸｴ 8нсцьъйэк / (ъйрйх 4 ｲｰｰｰ 5æØ ª©­² ıƳ²ı©­ ©Œ ºØ­ŁØ © ²æ©º ̶¬æıª R­ºØ function, and visual‑motor processes to the prediction of handwriting status. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 121‑140. 8нсцьъйэк / :сцчц . )съылр * # & 1йъэыр 4 ｲｰｰｹ &Tت²ıµØ­Ø ©Œ Ø­‑ sorimotor and task‑oriented handwriting intervention in elementary school‑aged ²³ŁØ­² ¹ı²æ æ̶­Ł¹ ı²ı­º ŁıUª³œ²ıØ OTJR: Occupation, Participation, and Health, 29, 125‑134. 8эфо ( 4рнй $ -няьряйсьн 3 ｲｰｱｰ .©²© øıœœ œØ̶ ­ı­º ̶­Ł ¬Ø Œ© ß̶­ªØ ̶ صıع ©Œ ı­S³Ø­²ı̶œ Œ̶ª²© Medical Education, ｴｴ ｷｵ ｸｴ Accepted March 15, 2011. Explicit Handwriting Program EFFICACY OF AN EXPLICIT HANDWRITING PROGRAM 1, MARIE-LAURE KAISER University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland JEAN-MICHEL ALBARET University of Toulouse III, France PIERRE-ANDRÉ DOUDIN University of Lausanne, Switzerland 1 Address correspondence to Marie-Laure Kaiser, CHUV-NE 5035, Pierre-Decker Avenue 5, 1011 Lausanne, SWITZERLAND or email ([email protected]). 2 Explicit Handwriting Program Summary.—The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an explicit handwriting program introduced during the first grade of elementary school. Grade 1 children (N=23) with an age range of 6.1 and 7.4 yr. (15 girls, 8 boys) were administered an additional handwriting program of two weekly sessions of 45 min. over six weeks. Another group of 19 Grade 1 children (11 girls, 8 boys) received only the regular handwriting program of one weekly session. The Concise Assessment Scale for Children’s Handwriting was administered to measure the changes in quality and speed of handwriting. The children given the explicit program showed better quality and speed of handwriting than did the control group. Their handwriting was more regular, with fewer ambiguous letters and fewer incorrect relative heights. 3 Explicit Handwriting Program The prevalence of non proficient handwriters varies from 6% to 10% among children between 8 and 13 years (Berninger, Mizokawa, & Bragg, 1991; Smits-Engelsman, Niemeijer, & van Galen, 2001) and is also related to gender, with more boys found to be non-proficient handwriters (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008). Children with nonproficient handwriting, in terms of quality or speed, show weaker results in spelling compared to that of their peers who are proficient handwriters (Berninger, et al., 1991); such children are in a double-task situation and must work harder as they have to think about how to form a letter and at the same time as how to generate a written text (Berninger, Vaughan, Abbot, Abbot, Woodruff Rogan, et al., 1997). Moreover, teachers tend to give lower marks to papers with poor handwriting than those with good handwriting (Alston & Taylor, 1987). Teaching a child to be competent in handwriting helps to optimize that child’s results at school and to decrease poor composition results (Jones & Christensen, 1999). However, the time devoted to teaching handwriting in a classroom is often given low priority in school curricula. Graham, Harris, and Fink (2000) found that one-third of teachers interviewed combined the teaching of handwriting with other courses, one-third devoted a specific course to the teaching of handwriting once a week, and one-third gave only specific instruction to children who had difficulties. Graham, Harris, Mason, Fink-Chorzempa, Moran, and Saddler, (2008) showed that 88% of teachers interviewed thought that they did not have sufficient training to teach handwriting. When poor handwriting is identified, two types of remediation are usually proposed. The first one is based on sensorimotor programs carried by individual therapists outside the school program (Laszlo & Bairstow, 1983; Harris & Livesey, 1992). The second type is an intensive handwriting program introduced during school time for a group of children who are at risk of developing non-proficient handwriting and which includes specific teaching activities such as alphabet singing or practising letters at different speeds (Berninger, et al., 1997; Graham, et al., 2000; Jongmans, Linthorst-Bakker, Westenberg, & Smits-Engelsman, 2003). Studies which compared the efficacy of these two types of remediation tend to show that the remedial handwriting program within school seems more efficient than sensorimotor therapies (Denton, Cope, & Moser, 2006; Weintraub, Yinon, Hirsch, & Parush, 2009). Among handwriting programs, the programs that include explicit learning with verbal cues (names of letters that may serve as retrieval cues) also contribute to improving handwriting (Jones & Christensen 1999). Furthermore, the variation of parameters such as force or speed of movement is useful in assisting the learner in paying more attention to these variable parameters (Jongmans, et al., 2003). When handwriting is taught within a 4 Explicit Handwriting Program meaningful context that allows children to use handwriting in a purposeful way, they are more motivated to master the skill (Denton, et al., 2006). Finally, the time devoted to teaching and to learning handwriting must be sufficient for each child to reach the required level of handwriting (Karlsdottir & Stefansson; 2002; Denton, et al., 2006). The observed benefits of handwriting programs vary from one study to another. Several authors (Lockart & Law, 1994; Berninger, et al., 1997; Jongmans, et al., 2003; Denton, et al., 2006) observed that children with non-proficient handwriting showed significant improvement in the quality of their handwriting after an intensive program. However, Jongmans, et al. (2003) showed that a group with non-proficient handwriting improved in quality but not in speed of handwriting whereas a control group of proficient handwriters showed a more significant increase in speed but not in quality of handwriting (see also Lockart & Law, 1994). When children’s handwriting improves, competences other than handwriting have been found to improve as well, such as recognition of letters (Denton, et al., 2006), grammar and orthography (Berninger, et al., 1997), and ability to write stories (Jones & Christensen, 1999). Few studies have compared the effects of an intensive program featuring explicit learning with those of a regular, non-intensive program based on implicit learning. Therefore, the aims of the study were (1) to assess the effectiveness of an explicit handwriting program introduced at the beginning of Grade 1; (2) to compare the quality of the handwriting of a group who received a program based exclusively on the learning and use of cursive letters from the beginning of the school year in comparison with a group who had a regular program in which children printed letters during the first trimester while having one weekly lesson with cursive letters. It was assumed that the children who followed an explicit program would progress significantly more in quality and speed of handwriting than the children of the control group who would have the regular program of only one weekly lesson. The handwriting of children from the experimental group would have significantly fewer ambiguous letters, corrections of letter forms and irregularities in joining strokes than the handwriting of the control group. The speed of handwriting from the experimental group would be significantly faster than the control group. METHOD Participants The research took place in a regular school from a rural part of the French part of Switzerland. Grade 1 begins after two years of kindergarten; the children learn to read and to 5 Explicit Handwriting Program handwrite during this first year of primary school. Three Grade 1 classes from a regular public school participated on a voluntary basis. Grade 1 children (n = 23; 6.1 to 7.3 years old) from two classes constituted the experimental group with 15 boys and 8 girls. The control group (n = 19) was composed of 8 girls and 11 boys from one class. No differences in the teaching of handwriting between the teachers were observed. In the school system where the research took place, it was not possible for the parents to choose the school or teacher of their child. The children were all fluent French speakers and they came from the same kindergarten which provides an identical pre-graphism program. The objectives of this program were to become familiar with different graphical tools, to master movements for graphism and to learn how to draw different shapes such as circles, vertical and horizontal lines as well as diagonals. All the children in these classes participated in the study with the written consent of their parents who were informed that they could withdraw their children at any time during the research. Measure As the children had not learnt during kindergarten how to write letters, no handwriting evaluation was possible at the beginning of Grade 1. The experimental and control groups were assessed for speed and for quality with the French version of the BHK-Concise Assessment Scale for Children’s Handwriting (Charles, Soppelsa, & Albaret, 2003) two months after the end of the explicit program. In this test, the child is only asked to copy a text, for 5 min., in cursive letters. The first five lines are analysed in the assessment process, using 13 criteria: (1) letter size, (2) left margin widening, (3) poor word alignment, (4) insufficient word spacing, (5) acute turns in connecting letters or overly long connections, (6) no joining strokes, (7) collision of letters, (8) inconsistent letter size, (9) incorrect relative height of letters, (10) letter distortion, (11) ambiguous letter forms, (12) correction of the letter, and (13) unsteady writing trace. Each criterion is given a rating from zero to five, therefore the quality of handwriting may range from between 0 (worst) and 65 (best). For children in Grade 1, a score under 20 means no difficulty, a score between 21 and 28 signifies poor handwriting and a score at or above 29, very poor handwriting. Concerning the speed of handwriting, the number of letters written during the 5-min. period is counted; the mean is 170 letters and a score two standard deviations below the mean is 82.1 letters. The inter-rater reliability for the BHK is .90 and the concurrent validity with teachers’ judgement is .68 (p < .01) (Charles, et al., 2003). Procedure 6 Explicit Handwriting Program The first author of this paper, along with two students training in occupational therapy, administered the additional program of two 45-min. weekly sessions for a period of six weeks. Handwriting Programs The objectives of the program were to develop digital dexterity, to provide the child with explicit learning, using the development of learning strategies such as auto-evaluation, anticipation or verbalization, and to practice endurance and speed. A review of the literature was carried out to identify the most effective methods for teaching and learning handwriting. Each session was composed of five parts. The first part started with digital dexterity exercises, as digital dexterity is a predictive factor in handwriting quality (Cornhill & CaseSmith, 1996) among a group of Grade 1 children composed of proficient and non-proficient handwriters in a group of 10-year-old children (Weintraub & Graham, 2000). Several in-hand manipulations were practiced, such as sequential opposition of digits or translation movements of five small objects, one after another, from the fingertips to the palm or from the palm to the fingertips. During the second part of the program, the usefulness of handwriting was also discussed with the children. As proposed by Denton, et al., a meaningful context was provided for the children who were asked why it was important to learn handwriting. They were also given the task of writing short sentences for their classmates to read. The children were instructed to make links between written letters and phonological sounds (Denton, et al., 2006). They were then encouraged to find words that contained the letter being learnt or to enunciate all the possible sounds for one letter. During the third part of the program, the teaching of letters was carried out. As the letters “a, c, d, g, q, o” had already been learnt by the children during the weeks preceding the experiment, the following letters were presented: “e, l, h, k, f, b, i, t, u, v, w, j, y, m, n, p, r, s, x, z”. During each session, two or three letters were learnt only in cursive style. The researcher administering the additional program modeled the movements required for writing each target letter while providing explanations about the direction stroke of the letter. As mentioned by Jones and Christensen (1999), explanations provided with modeling are more effective than explanation or modeling alone. As in the experiment conducted by Berninger, et al. (1997), each child had the model of the letter in front of him, with arrows indicating the direction and to memorize how to write it. 7 Explicit Handwriting Program During the fourth part, children practised the letter on white paper, varying speed and size, and then they wrote it on a page that contained a model of the letter. They were able to try out different kinds of pens or pencils. Next, the children were given a metacognitive task: as described by Jongmans, et al. (2003), they analyzed their handwriting to identify the differences between their own production and the model. Each child explained to the researcher where he should pay attention the next time he wrote the letter. He then identified the best-written letter and put a sticker under it. The regular school program includes 40 minutes each week of handwriting which involves practising two or three letters in a notebook. The children are asked to copy the letter several times then to copy words that contain those letters. However, during the first trimester of the school year, children must write with print letters, i.e., in the style of printed materials such as books or newspapers, for all their written work. It should be pointed out that certain print letters are not formed in the same way in cursive writing (b, f, h, k, l, p, r, s, v, w, x, z). This practice is typical of most teachers from the state where the research took place. It has no particular theoretical basis. Analysis A t test for independent groups was performed for comparisons of the two groups on quality and speed variables at post-test with SPSS Version 13. Significance was set at p < .05. RESULTS For the quality of handwriting on the BHK, the children from the experimental group had a mean of 17.1 (SD = 7.2) and the children from the control group had a mean of 24.7 (SD = 7.0). For the speed of handwriting, the mean of the explicit handwriting program group were 55.7 (SD = 19.7) letters in 5 min. while the mean of the regular handwriting program group was 40.7 (18.6). The experimental group performed significantly better on speed and quality than the control group. Differences between items of the BHK showed significantly fewer irregularities in joining strokes, better word alignment, fewer ambiguous letters, and fewer corrections of letters for the experimental group than for the control group (Table 1). 8 Explicit Handwriting Program DISCUSSION Two months after having received the explicit handwriting program, the children who had taken part showed a better quality in their handwriting than that of the control group. The main results of this study supported the results of several other studies (Lockart & Law, 1994; Berninger, et al., 1997; Denton, et al., 2006). As hypothesized, the handwriting of the experimental group contained significantly fewer ambiguous letters, fewer corrections of letter forms, and irregularities in joining strokes and a better alignment of letters than the control group’s handwriting. The children from the experimental group probably had better control over the movements needed to perform handwriting, because what differentiated the two groups was the quality of the trace (joining strokes and alignment of letters). As the experimental group presented fewer ambiguous letters and corrections of form than the control group, it could be postulated that they had developed a better general motor program for forming letters (Smits-Engelsman & Van Galen, 1997), which confirms that when children are given the opportunity to analyze their written productions and to speak with someone about them, they can improve their motor programs. As in Jones and Christensen (1999), writing speed was faster for the experimental group than for the control group. However, this result differed from those of two studies, which did not find any significant results in terms of speed (Lockart & Law, 1994; Jongmans, et al., 2003). As mentioned in motor learning theory (Wulf, Shea, & Lewthwaite, 2010), explicit learning and self-controlled practice seems to influence the building of a motor program and to be optimal when combined with the performance of the movement. The results confirm this hypothesis and support the introduction of a handwriting program containing explicit learning as well as self-instruction and self-evaluation. As children are required to write from the beginning of Grade 1, it would seem relevant to introduce an explicit handwriting program to improve skills that would lead to an improvement in all activities requiring handwriting. As mentioned by Graham, et al. (2000), introducing an additional handwriting program and allowing more time for children to learn these skills could prevent further difficulties in both handwriting and in tasks that involve writing. Although the design of this study could not include a pre-test evaluation, the significant difference can be explained by the influence of the additional program due to the significant difference between the two groups involving items that require better mastery of movements rather than the results of letters that could have been trained at home. This study should ideally be repeated in different contexts, especially with children at risk of developing 9 Explicit Handwriting Program handwriting difficulties. Longer-term follow-up should be conducted to assess whether the initial progress is maintained. The results of the present study indicate that an explicit handwriting program at the beginning of the first school year contributes to the mastering of both quality and speed of handwriting. The automatization of handwriting could free attention and working memory, allowing higher achievement of other academic requirements. 10 Explicit Handwriting Program REFERENCES Alston, J., & Taylor, J. (1987) Handwriting: Theory, research and practice. London: Croom Helm. Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991) Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57-59. Berninger, V., Vaughan, K. B., Abbot, R. D., Abbot, S. P., Woodruff Rogan, L., Brooks, A., & Reed, E. (1997) Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652-666. Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008) Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 1-21. Charles, M., Soppelsa, R., & Albaret, J-M. (2003) BHK - Echelle d'évaluation rapide de l'écriture chez l'enfant. Paris: Editions et Applications Psychologiques. Cornhill, H., & Case-Smith, J. (1996) Factors that relate good and poor handwriting. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 732-739. Denton, P. L., Cope, S., & Moser, C. (2006) The effects of sensorimotor-based intervention versus therapeutic practice on improving handwriting performance in 6- to 11-yearold children. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 16-27. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (2000) Is handwriting causally related to learning to write ? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620-633. Graham, G., Harris, L., Mason, L., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Moran, S., & Saddler, B. (2008) How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 49-69. Harris, S. J., & Livesey, D. J. (1992) Improving handwriting through Kinaesthetic sensitvity practice. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 39, 23-27. Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999) Relation between automaticity in handwriting and students' ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 4449. Jongmans, M., Linthorst-Bakker, E., Westenberg, Y., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M. (2003) Use of a task-oriented self-instruction method to support in primary school with poor handwriting quality and speed. Human Movement Science, 22, 549-566. Karlsdottir, R., & Stefansson, T. (2002) Problems in developing functional handwriting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 623-662. 11 Explicit Handwriting Program Laszlo, J. I., & Bairstow, P. J. (1983) Kinaesthesis : its measurement, training and relationship to motor control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 411-421. Lockart, J., & Law, M. (1994) The effectiveness of a multisensory writing program for improving cursive writing ability in children with sensori-motor difficulties. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 206-215. Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M., Niemeijer, A. S., & van Galen, G. P. (2001) Fine motor deficiencies in children diagnosed as DCD based on poor grapho-motor ability. Human Movement Science, 20, 161-182. Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M., & Van Galen, G. P. (1997) Dysgraphia in children: lasting psychomotor deficiency or transient developmental delay. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, 164-184. Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (2000) The contribution of gender, orthographic, finger function, and visual-motor processes to the prediction of handwriting status. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 121-140. Weintraub, N., Yinon, M., Hirsch, I. B. E., & Parush, S. (2009) Effectiveness of Sensorimotor and Task-Oriented Handwriting Intervention in Elementary SchoolAged Students With Handwriting Difficulties. Otjr-Occupation Participation and Health, 29, 125-134. Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010) Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Medical Education, 44, 75-84. Accepted 12 Explicit Handwriting Program Table 1 Mean difference and t test for the experimental (E; n = 23) and control (C; n = 19) groups on BHK items measuring handwriting skills. Items BHK Group M SD Letter size E 1.91 1.39 C 2.21 1.79 E .78 .90 C .84 1.67 Poor word alignment E 3.53 1.54 C 4.46 ..95 E 1.80 1.62 C 2.71 1.95 E 1.46 1.54 C 1.32 1.63 E 3.41 1.40 C 4.57 .78 E .11 .36 C .26 1.14 E 1.79 1.45 C 2.64 1.72 E .92 1.26 C 2.42 2.26 E 1.45 1.52 Left margin widening Insufficient word spacing Acute turns or too long joining Irregularities in joining strokes Collision of letters Inconsistent letter size Incorrect relative height of letters Ambiguous letter forms MD df t d .30 40 0.61 0.19 .06 40 0.14 0.04 .93 37.39 2.38* 0.67 .90 35.01 1.64 0.49 .14 40 0.28 0.09 1.15 35.54 3.36† 0.89 .15 40 0.61 0.18 .85 40 1.71 0.52 1.50 26.97 2.56* 0.78 13 Explicit Handwriting Program C 2.68 1.14 Correction of letter E forms .65 .99 C .50 .85 E .00 .00 C .08 .34 Total score (quality) E 17.07 7.21 C 24.70 6.97 E 55.65 19.70 C 40.58 18.63 Unsteady writing trace Speed 1.23 40 2.70* 0.77 .15 40 0.52 0.16 .08 18 1.00 0.34 7.61 41 3.48† 0.37 15.07 40 2.52† 2.03 Note.— d= Cohen’s d. an = 23. bn = 19. *p < .05. †p < .01.