A Comparison Between Students Who Receive and

A Comparison Between Students Who Receive and Who Do Not Receive a Writing Readiness Interventions on Handwriting Quality, Speed and Positive Reactions Nirit Lifshitz & Shirley Har-Zvi

Early Childhood Education Journal ISSN 1082-3301 Volume 43 Number 1 Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:47-55 DOI 10.1007/s10643-013-0629-y

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media New York. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:47–55 DOI 10.1007/s10643-013-0629-y

A Comparison Between Students Who Receive and Who Do Not Receive a Writing Readiness Interventions on Handwriting Quality, Speed and Positive Reactions Nirit Lifshitz • Shirley Har-Zvi

Published online: 14 January 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Proper acquisition of handwriting is required for success in school. This study compared the effects of two writing readiness interventions, ‘‘Traffic Light’’ and ‘‘Word and Sound’’ on kindergartners’ handwriting quality, speed and positive reactions to writing. Handwriting readiness training for kindergarten children is controversial. Whereas some have questioned whether such a program would result in frustration, others believe it is crucial to prepare children for the writing demands of school. Research shows that the period from kindergarten to school plays a vital role in determining future academic success. Thus, it is important to examine the efficacy of programs that can help children acquire good handwriting. Participants included typical kindergarten children from four kindergartens in Israel. The ‘‘Malki’’ test, designed to assess writing quality, speed and positive reactions to writing, was administered to all participants. A handwriting readiness program (‘‘Traffic Light’’), designed to teach letter formation by using the image of traffic light was provided to 55 children from two kindergartens. A phonological awareness program (‘‘Word and Sound’’) was administered to a second group of 46 kindergartners. Both programs were administered to groups of five children each, in 12 weekly 20-min sessions. The handwriting readiness group demonstrated significantly greater improvement than the control group in writing quality and N. Lifshitz (&) Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health Professions, Ono Academic College, Kiryat Ono, Israel e-mail: [email protected] S. Har-Zvi Department of Special Education, Talpiot College of Education, Holon, Israel e-mail: [email protected]

positive reactions to writing, but not in writing speed. These findings support the efficacy of a handwriting readiness training program among kindergartners. Keywords Early intervention Handwriting Handwriting readiness Kindergarten children

Introduction Handwriting is one of the most significant skills that students must acquire in elementary school (Lust and Donica 2011; Schneck and Amundson 2010). It enables them to convey ideas, preserve them over time and conduct effective interpersonal communication (Feder and Majnemer 2007). Thus, a child’s success or failure in handwriting will influence his/her ability to meet academic requirements in school (Graham and Harris 2005; Stevenson and Just 2012). Studies have shown that between 30 and 60 % of the school day is spent in writing tasks (Cutler and Graham 2008; Volman et al. 2006). In fact, despite the technological aids that can be used for writing, handwriting remains the most significant tool for written expression among students (Peverly 2006). Even in the current era in which there is extensive use of computers, children still write by hand for a significant amount of their time in school in order to demonstrate their knowledge (Feder and Majnemer 2007; Graham and Harris 2005; Hart et al. 2010). Moreover, 74 % of elementary school teachers studied by Cutler and Graham (2008) reported that they use computers less than one time a month to support their students’ writing. Efficient writing must be fluent, automatic, timely and legible (Yinon and Weintraub 2000). Some educators question whether handwriting problems in children don’t

123

Author's personal copy 48

simply normalize over time without the need for intervention (Marr and Cermak 2003). Nevertheless, studies have shown that over time, handwriting issues left unresolved lead to frustration, less written output and ultimately, lower grades (Graham and Perin 2007). In the study of Berninger et al. (1997) they state the belief that some children have inadequate handwriting skills simply because they have not had adequate instruction. Furthermore, many children who are referred for occupational therapy do not have dysfunctional skills instead, they need structured and consistent instruction on letter formation (Asher 2006).

Underlying Components of Handwriting and Handwriting Disabilities Handwriting requires an integration of cognitive, language, motor (planning, eye-hand coordination, in hand manipulation, etc.) and sensory abilities (Gophna 2005). Handwriting legibility includes a number of characteristics including the proper formation, directionality, size, and tilt of the letters; good line quality; and proper organization on the page, which relates to the spacing between letters and words as well as their placement on the line (Cermak 1991; Feder and Majnemer 2007). Recently, more and more school children have been referred for occupational therapy because of handwriting deficits (Hoy et al. 2011; Schneck and Amundson 2010). This refers to 10–21 % of the population of schoolchildren (Weintraub et al. 2010). These children will often experience difficulty expressing their actual knowledge through writing. They will attempt to complete assignments with a minimal number of words, find it difficult to complete assignments on time, or try to avoid doing their assignments altogether. Some need to concentrate so much on the technical aspects of writing that they find it hard to focus on the actual content of the task (Cermak 1991; Peverly 2006). These children’s difficulty can often result in academic underachievement, low self-esteem and even social rejection (Cermak 1991; Engel-Yeger, Nagauker-Yanuv, and Rosenblum 2009; Shaw 2011). Moreover, children are frequently aware of their difficulties in handwriting, which can affect their participation in classroom activities (EngelYeger et al. 2009).

Handwriting Readiness Intervention in Kindergarten It is widely accepted that the period of transition from kindergarten to school has an important role in the academic readiness of children (Shaw 2011; Skibbe et al. 2011). Moreover, the literature has begun to explore the

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:47–55

contribution of intervention in the process of proper letter formation that begins in kindergarten (Edwards 2003; Lust and Donica 2011; Marr et al. 2001; Shaw 2011). Recently, a number of studies have been published on the question of handwriting intervention programs for kindergarten children. However, this topic is controversial (Van Kleeck and Schuele 2010). Those who oppose such intervention feel that by pressuring the children to write letters properly, they are liable to focus more on the formation of the letters than on free writing. In addition, some researchers feel that such pressure may cause a child to perceive writing as a difficult exercise rather than as an interesting and relaxing activity. Their belief is that proper handwriting and letter formation will develop in due time. They stated that requiring a young child to form letters competently before the accompanying motor skills have developed may lead to frustration and disappointment. They emphasized the need to develop children’s social, emotional, play, and broadly conceived cognitive skills but not foundational literacy skills (Bredekamp 1987). Those who recommend intervention at kindergarten age rely on accumulating evidence that attempts at quality writing in kindergarten result in improved academic achievements, most often in literacy skills, especially among students who are at risk of academic underachievement (Hart et al. 2010; Morrison et al. 2009; Shatil et al. 2000). From these studies it is possible to conclude that an intervention program for kindergarten children that will advance literacy abilities, such as writing, can lead to improved academic achievements at school age. Moreover, it can prevent atypical writing habits from becoming ingrained and difficult to change at a later age. A similar approach was presented by Kushnir (2008) in her article relating to mirror-writing in kindergarten-age children. She claims that mirror writing may represent a transient stage in the developmental process of some children; however, for others it may signify problems with spatial integration and visuomotor integration that can result in writing difficulties in school. Thus, it is important to identify and overcome this problem early on, at kindergarten age, so that children will feel satisfaction rather than frustration from their ability to execute letter formation properly. Moreover, Kushnir posits that this intervention can reinforce the child’s ability to receive positive, constructive criticism in order to develop heightened emotional intelligence. In accordance with the published guidelines of the Israeli Ministry of Education (Levin et al. 2007), one of the goals in kindergarten is teach children to write words phonetically. Moreover, the Ministry of Health document emphasizes that handwriting should not be taught formally in kindergarten, but that kindergarten teachers enable the children to experience phonetic writing in accordance with

Author's personal copy Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:47–55

their understanding. In a later document published by the Israeli Ministry of Health (Hadad Ma-Yafit 2010), further guidelines were presented for the educational staff. Surprisingly, these documents do not consider the manner of instilling proper letter formation and spatial organization in writing. This study examines the need to consider that the initiation of handwriting training in kindergarten be included as part of the process of providing readiness for first grade. The current study’s hypothesis was that children who receive methodical, structured practice in learning to form letters correctly in kindergarten reach greater achievements in handwriting quality and speed as well as react more positively when performing writing than do children who undergo the regular learning program in kindergarten. Thus, the findings of this study may help ensure that children approaching the start of first grade cope more easily with the need to perform handwriting tasks at the start of their educational journey.

Methods This research was designed as an experimental, quantitative study. Participants The intervention study included a convenience sample of 101 participants from four regular kindergartens in central Israel, in which 55 children were included in the study group and 46 children in the control group. The mean age of the study sample was 5.39 years (SD = 0.45), of whom 49 were girls and 52 were boys. None of the participants were defined as requiring special education programs and none had physical disabilities that would prevent them from performing handwriting. Measures The Hebrew Handwriting Readiness Assessment (HHRA) is Known as the ‘Malki’ in Hebrew This unique assessment was developed by the researchers to address the lack of an appropriate tool to measure Hebrew handwriting readiness in kindergarten children (Lifshitz and Har-Zvi 2012). This tool is used to assess handwriting quality, speed and positive reactions to handwriting performance. It is based on the literature that discusses the examination of handwriting quality among elementary school children (Cermak 1991; Erez and Parush 1999; Feder and Majnemer 2007), and was adapted for use with kindergarten children. The researchers established the

49

content validity of the ‘Malki’ and a pilot study was performed to examine its method of administration and scoring. The pilot study indicated that for a number of items, the original scales used to rank the scores did not clearly distinguish between the children’s abilities and were consequently revised to increase their sensitivity. The ‘Malki’ is comprised of three sections: writing one’s name, copying the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and copying a three-word sentence, all on 1 cm lined paper. As mentioned previously, it focuses on three variables: handwriting quality, handwriting speed and children’s positive reactions to performing the test’s handwriting tasks. Handwriting Quality Eleven parameters were examined with respect to the quality of the child’s Hebrew handwriting, and are rated separately using an ordinal scale as described below: Quality of one’s written name—Determined by rating the following features of writing quality on a scale from 1 to 3 (1—improper, 2—partially improper, 3—proper): are the letters recognizable and formed correctly, are the letters written on the line, is the letter size and directionality consistent and correct (i.e., does not reverse the orientation of the written letter as in ‘‘mirror writing’’) and is the name written correctly. An average score of the four parameters combined was calculated. Hebrew contains 22 letters. The quality of the written Hebrew alphabet letters is determined by rating the following parameters: The directionality of letter formation (of note, most Hebrew alphabet letters are printed from top to bottom and from left to right). Each alphabet letter is scored according to a dichotomous scale (1—proper, 2—improper) and a total score is calculated for each participant. Quality of the written lines, that is, whether the lines used to form each individual letter straight and flowing (proper) or shaky or fragmented (improper). An ordinal scale from 1 to 3 (1—improper, 2—partially proper, to 3— proper), is used to score each letter. The overall intensity of the lines used to form the letters. An ordinal scale (1–5) is used to score this variable. 1— completely improper (that is, overly blackened or soft and faint), 2—improper, 3—partially proper, 4—almost proper, 5—altogether proper. Spatial orientation of the letters, which refers to whether the letters are written in the correct spatial orientation versus mirror writing. A dichotomous scale was used for scoring (1—improper, 2—proper) for each of the 22 letters and a total score was calculated for each participant. Letter formation. Correctly formed and legible. The letter segments are connected and their relative length is

123


proper. An ordinal scale ranging from 1 to 3 is used for scoring (1—improper, 2—partially proper, 3—proper). Writing on the lines. Hebrew letters must be consistently written within, and not above or below the lines, except for certain letters. In the print format of all 22 letters examined in this study, only one letter extends above the line (‘‘Lamed’’) and one extends below the lines (‘‘Kof’’). For each letter of the alphabet, letter placement relative to the lines is examined and a score is given according to an ordinal scale ranging from 1 to 5, such that 1 = improper (10 or more letters are not properly aligned); 2 = almost completely improper (6–9 letters are not properly aligned); 3 = partially proper (4–5 letters are not properly aligned); 4 = mostly proper (1–3 letters are not properly aligned); 5 = all letters are properly aligned. Spaces between the letters the appropriate spacing is characterized by letters that do not touch one another and separated by a distance that is smaller than the width of an average letter (Erez and Parush 1999). This parameter is scored based on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (improperly spaced) to 4 (properly spaced). Spacing between the words (three words, two spaces). The appropriate space used to separate words is slightly greater than the width of one letter (Erez and Parush 1999). Scoring is according to an ordinal scale that ranges from 1 (improper) to 4 (proper). Pencil grip. A proper grip is stable yet dynamic. The wrist is placed on the writing surface to stabilize it. The fingers enable the dynamic use of the writing tools (such that it may move in the directions required for formation of a letter). An immature or defective pencil grip may result in slow, effortful and inaccurate writing. Pencil grip is observed throughout the performance of the tasks and scored according to an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (completely improper grip in which the movement is not controlled and/or unstable) to 5 (stable control of the pencil, with a stable dynamic grip). Use of nondominant hand. When writing, the nondominant hand should be placed on the page so that it does not move. The use of the nondominant hand to stabilize the page is observed throughout the performance of the tasks. Scores are given according to an ordinal scale that ranges from 1 (does not at all stabilize the page with the nondominant hand, 2 (stabilizes the page for part of the time) to 3 (stabilizes the page throughout the tasks). Handwriting Speed Handwriting speed is measured during each of the three stages of the assessment—name writing, writing of the alphabet letters and writing a sentence. The handwriting speed is measured in seconds with a stopwatch.

123


Positive Reactions to Writing During the performance of the writing tasks, behaviors indicative of positive reactions to the tasks are documented. These include whether the writer: (1) begins the task immediately; (2) displays pleasure by writing in a relaxed, determined manner; and (3) expresses confidence and self-satisfaction upon completion of the writing task. An ordinal scale (1—no, 2—yes) was used to score each of the measures and a total score was calculated for each participant.

Procedure Research Study The study proposal was authorized by the chief research scientist of the Ministry of Education. A convenience sample of four kindergartens was recruited from central Israel. Two research assistants worked with the children in two of the four kindergartens (study group) on handwriting development using the ‘‘Traffic Light’’ writing program (also known as ‘‘Ramzor’’). In parallel, two additional research assistants, remedial teachers, worked with the children in the two other kindergarten classes (control group) on developing phonological awareness through the ‘‘Word and Sound’’ program. All four research assistants were remedial teachers. They were experts in the field of handwriting readiness with at least 5 years of experience. They received detailed instructions regarding the manner in which to work with the children. In all four kindergartens the ‘Malki’ assessment of handwriting readiness pre-intervention test was administered. The assessment tool administered individually to the children by a research assistant who did not conduct the intervention, at their kindergarten. Both interventions were conducted over a 3-month period in groups composed of 5–6 children each. Each session was 20-min long and a total of 12 weekly sessions were run. The ‘‘Ramzor’’ program (Shimoni 2008), an innovative didactic method for the development of handwriting readiness, was conducted by a remedial teacher with the experimental group. Through this method, children learn to form letters with the help of the visual image of a traffic light to guide the direction of writing. A green light represents the starting point of letter formation, a yellow light represents the continuation of letter formation and a red light signals the end point. The novelty of this method is in its use of color and the visual image of a familiar object (traffic light) that represents an associative basis to support memory, and a concrete, enjoyable training experience. In addition, this method is graded according to levels of


difficulty, from letters composed of straight lines to letters with diagonal components, and the lessons revolved around groups of letters with a similar structure. Thus, from the start of the program the children learned how to form the letters properly from the perspective of directionality, connecting the letter segments, organizing the letters within and adjacent to a line, all while maintaining appropriate spacing between the letters and the words. The purpose of this intervention was to prepare the children for efficient and flowing handwriting. The control group was trained in the development of phonological awareness by a remedial teacher, through a booklet describing the use of the ‘‘Word and Sound’’ method (Kellner 2008). The children learned to segment words phonetically and to identify the beginning and ending sounds of a word. The process included activities such as naming words, segmenting words according to sounds through hand clapping, drumming and coloring blocks corresponding to the number of the word sounds, grouping words with the same number of sounds, cutting out pictures and pasting them correctly according to the order of the word sounds, identifying the beginning and ending sounds of words, drawing lines between pairs of words that begin or end with the same sound and performing phonological manipulations within words. At the completion of the programs, the ‘Malki’ test was readministered for all the study participants. Data Analyses Chronbach’s alpha was employed to examine the internal reliability of all but one of the ‘Malki’ items used to assess the written quality of all 22 letters of the alphabet (line intensity could not be included in this analysis since the score for this variable related to line intensity of the overall written product). A high level of reliability was revealed for each of the four variables, as follows: direction of letter formation—alpha = 0.91, quality of the written lines— alpha = 0.94, spatial formation of the letters— alpha = .93, letter formation—alpha = 0.95. To examine the consistency of ‘Malki’ assessment’s rating of the final product, Pearson’s correlation was used to test interrater reliability. Only those items that could result in different distributions of results were selected. These were comprised of the following: (1) quality of the written name; (2) quality of the alphabet letters (including line, quality, intensity, and formation); and (3) orientation in space— placement of letters relative to the line, spacing between the letters and the words. The pre- and post-intervention samples of two children were randomly selected (a total of four samples). Six judges who were experts in the area of handwriting readiness of young children and had at least 5 years of experience examined the samples.

51

The correlations resulting from the calculation interrater reliability ranged from 0.52 to 0.99 indicating moderate to high agreement between them regarding the selected handwriting components. Prior to start of the interventions, an independent t test was administered to examine the differences between the experimental and control groups with respect to each of the three dependent study variables (writing speed, handwriting quality and positive reactions to writing). In order to examine the study hypotheses, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was performed to determine the main effect and interactions (group vs. time of administration) regarding all three of the dependent variables of the study (speed of writing, quality of handwriting and positive reactions to writing).

Results The Effect of the Training Program on Improving Handwriting Quality Hypothesis one of this study posited that handwriting readiness training through the ‘‘Ramzor’’ method would result in greater improvement of handwriting quality than that achieved by the regular kindergarten curriculum (i.e., phonological awareness training through the ‘‘Word and Sound’’ method). The results demonstrated that a significantly greater improvement was achieved by the handwriting readiness training group in comparison to the control group with respect to the directionality of letter formation, quality and intensity of the written line, spatial positioning of the letters, letter formation, and writing letters on the line, all of which support this hypothesis (see Table 1). A greater but non-significant difference in relative improvement, in favor of the handwriting readiness group, was found for the following variables: quality of the written name, spacing between letters and words, pencil grasp and use of the nondominant hand to stabilize the page. The Effect of the Training Program on Handwriting Speed The second study hypothesis stated that children in the handwriting readiness training group would show greater improvement in handwriting speed than those in the phonological awareness training group. The findings indicated a significant improvement in handwriting speed in both groups following intervention (M1before = 221.18, SD = 92.9, M1after = 171.56, SD = 95.09; M2before = 235.26, SD = 70.58, M2after = 156.98, SD = 48.21), and no significant difference was found between the groups for this measure.

123



Table 1 Distribution of the means, standard deviations, and degree of significance of the change of handwriting quality measures between groups Measure

Study group before program Mean (SD)

Study group after program, Mean (SD)

Control group before program Mean (SD)

Control group after program Mean (SD)

Directionality of letters

1.31 (0.24)

1.72 (0.20)

1.23 (0.22)

1.34 (0.26)

Mean of the Quartiles

F

P

1.19

71.18

*** ***

Quality of written lines

1.71 (0.49)

2.71 (0.30)

1.65 (0.45)

2.24 (0.28)

2.11

20.37

Intensity of written lines

2.44 (1.10)

4.51 (0.81)

2.81 (1.08)

3.59 (1.00)

20.56

28.73

***

Spatial positioning of letters

1.84 (0.20)

1.97 (0.03)

1.93 (0.06)

1.95 (0.04)

0.56

13.98

***

Letter formation

1.83 (0.49)

2.70 (0.36)

1.70 (0.45)

2.30 (0.28)

0.90

7.73

**

Letters written on line

1.09 (0.44)

3.31 (1.39)

1.09 (0.46)

1.37 (0.97)

46.92

58.54

***

**p B 0.01; ***p B 0.001

Table 2 Distribution of the means, standard deviations, and degree of significance of the change in children’s responses to writing between groups Measure

Mean prior 1

Mean after 1

Mean prior 2

Mean after 2

Mean of the quartiles

F

P

Positive reactions

1.63 (0.23)

1.80 (0.18)

1.81 (0.14)

1.82 (0.21)

0.30

10.15

**

**p B 0.01

The Effect of the Intervention Programs on Improving Positive Reactions to Writing We hypothesized that following the interventions the children in the handwriting readiness training program would express a greater number of positive reactions to writing than the children in the control group. The results indicated that although both groups enjoyed writing significantly more following the programs, the handwriting readiness training group expressed a greater increase in their positive reactions to writing than did the children in the control group (see Table 2).

Discussion The primary purpose of this study was to examine if a systematic, structured training program in handwriting will result in greater achievements in handwriting quality and speed and a greater number of positive reactions when performing handwriting tasks than those achieved as a result of the regular learning program (phonological awareness training). The Influence of the Training Programs on Improving Handwriting Quality The first research hypothesis, namely, that the group who underwent handwriting training program through the ‘‘Ramzor’’ method, would improve more with respect to handwriting quality than children who were exposed to the

123

regular kindergarten phonological awareness program, was partially validated. In all measures of letter formation quality—directionality of the letters, quality of the line, intensity of the line, spatial placement of the letters and formation of the written letter, significantly greater differences were found in improved handwriting quality in the study group than in the control group. Similarly, the study group showed greater improvements in writing on the lines, which relates to organization in space. These findings are supported by those of Lust and Donica (2011), who compared 20 children who participated in a handwriting readiness program and 20 children who did not. The results described above highlight the contribution of handwriting readiness training programs. This contribution is quite meaningful, especially among the kindergarten-age children whose achievement in handwriting readiness is especially poor. This is evidenced in the study of Marr and Cermak (2003), who examined 93 kindergarten children. The researchers divided the sample into three groups according to their level of handwriting readiness (low, moderate and high). Half-way through first grade, the children were reexamined and it was found that the children with a low level of handwriting readiness in kindergarten had significantly poorer handwriting skill than the children who had moderate and high level of handwriting readiness in kindergarten. These findings strengthen the position of those who recommend that handwriting intervention begin in kindergarten. In fact, cumulative evidence indicates that training in handwriting quality during kindergarten results in improved academic achievements, including literacy skills, especially among students at risk for academic underachievement


(Aram 2005; Hart et al. 2010; Morrison et al. 2009; Shatil et al. 2000). Moreover, intervention to improve handwriting skills at kindergarten age can prevent children from acquiring improper handwriting habits that are difficult to change at a later age. However, no significant differences were found in the improvement between the study groups with respect to the quality of their written names, although the average measure of change among the handwriting readiness training group was greater than that found in the control group. This may result from the fact that the writing of one’s name is a skill that is repeatedly performed by all kindergarten children, such as on pictures they draw and other creative products. Thus, both groups had probably had a similar degree of opportunities to practice writing their names. Moreover, Levin et al. (2005) have shown that preschoolers write their own names better than other words and suggest that this reflects the added attention that children and their parents pay to the child’s written name. In addition, no significant differences were found in the change that occurred in both groups regarding the spacing between letters and words. Although the study group achieved a greater level of change than the control group, the difference in change between them was not significant. However, an explanation is suggested by a closer examination of the ‘‘Ramzor’’ method workbook, in which we found the spacing between letters and words were predetermined for the children. Thus the children did not have the opportunity to independently determine the correct spatial organization. It would be interesting to examine whether children trained in the program would achieve statistically greater improvement with respect to these skills if the worksheets provided in the ‘‘Ramzor’’ workbook were set up to require children to practice letter and word spacing. It is not surprising that no significant change was found with respect to the ergonomic characteristics of handwriting performance (pencil grasp and use of supporting hand) between the study and control groups, as these aspects were not addressed directly in either program. This is an element of handwriting that would probably require the guidance of an occupational therapist to achieve improved performance by children. The Influence of the Training Programs on Improved Handwriting Speed The findings did not support the study hypothesis with respect to handwriting speed. In fact, the control group improved in their writing speed to a slightly greater extent than the study group, although the difference between their achievements was not significant. In general, studies that examined handwriting speed found that as the level of task complexity increases, speed

53

decreases (Schneck and Amundson 2010). Thus, it is possible the children in the handwriting readiness group devoted somewhat more attention to the quality of their handwriting product than did the children in the control group and, in essence, performing a more complex task. This could have compromised the speed of their handwriting performance in comparison to the control group. In fact, it is notable that although the children in the experimental group performed a task requiring them to invest more attention, the difference in speed between them and the control group was not significant. It would be interesting to perform a longitudinal study in which a longer training period was implemented to a point beyond the attainment of automatic writing and see how this would affect the relative handwriting speed of children who received versus those who did not receive this handwriting intervention. The Influence of the Training Programs on Improving the Number of Positive Reactions to Performing Handwriting Tasks As hypothesized, the results of this study indicated that the children in the handwriting readiness training program exhibited significantly more positive reactions when performing the required handwriting tasks following intervention, in comparison to the change effected in the control group. The findings are in line with Kushnir’s (2008) claim, that children who are given positive feedback regarding their handwriting at an early age will derive more satisfaction from writing, and concomitantly will experience much less frustration resulting from the attainment of poor handwriting habits. In fact, the development of writing ability is important in building a child’s self-esteem (Feder and Majnemer 2007).

Summary and Conclusions This study strengthens the hypothesis that handwriting readiness training improves the quality of kindergarten children’s handwriting, especially with respect to the formation of letters, quality and strength of the lines produced, placement of letters and words appropriately on the lines and the direction of letter formation. In addition, this study demonstrates that there is a relationship between a structured, experiential training program and a positive response to handwriting activities among kindergarten children who are working on developing these skills. This finding is significant given the importance of handwriting with respect to future academic success. Moreover, writing is an activity that is necessary for satisfactory performance in many aspects of an

123


individual’s life and well-being (Falk et al. 2011; Gilboa et al. 2010; Rosenblum and Livneh-Zirinski 2008; Van der Merwe et al. 2011). Thus, this study contributes towards the understanding that the inclusion of structured handwriting readiness programs should be considered as part of the regular kindergarten curriculum designed to assist in children’s readiness to transition to school. It is recommended that a longitudinal study be developed to examine if there is a relationship between students’ achievements on the ‘Malki’ assessment following handwriting readiness programs in kindergarten, and their educational achievements, handwriting abilities and self-esteem at the end of first and second grades. Moreover, this type of study could examine whether a longer and more frequently administered training program could provide children with the opportunity to obtain more efficient handwriting skills that could be expressed in increased handwriting speed.

Study Limitations There are a number of limitations to the current study. Since the participants were recruited through convenience sampling they may not be representative of the Israeli kindergarten population. Thus, future studies are recommended in which the participants provide a more varied representation of children with respect to socioeconomic and geographical considerations. Moreover, given that the research assistants who ran the groups were experienced remedial teachers working with small groups of children, it is possible that group size and the professional level of the assistants contributed to the study sample’s progress. Thus, it is recommended that handwriting readiness programs include teacher training and professional advancement in the area of handwriting, and that the programs be conducted in similarly sized groups. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the children who participated in this research, and their parents. Thanks are also due to the kindergarten teachers and supervisors, who enabled us to perform the research in the kindergartens under their care. Additional thanks to the dedicated research assistants who administered the various tests and performed the different interventions, to Dr. Moshe Raz for the statistical calculations and to Mrs. Sarina Goldstand for her assistance with the preparation of the manuscript. This research was supported by the MOFET Institute, the Department of Teacher Education at the Ministry of Education and Talpiot College of Education, Holon, Israel.

References Aram, D. (2005). Continuity in children’s literacy achievements: A longitudinal perspective from kindergarten to school. First Language, 25(3), 259–289.

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:47–55 Asher, A. V. (2006). Handwriting instruction in elementary schools. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60(4), 461–471. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., Brooks, A., et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 652–666. Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Cermak, S. A. (1991). Somatodyspraxia. In A. Fisher, E. Murray, & A. Bundy (Eds.), Sensory integration theory and practice (pp. 137–170). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis. Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instructions: A national survey. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. Edwards, L. (2003). Writing instruction in kindergarten: Examining an emerging area of research for children with writing and reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 136–148. Engel-Yeger, B., Nagauker-Yanuv, L., & Rosenblum, S. (2009). Handwriting performance, self-reports, and perceived self-efficacy among children with dysgraphia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(2), 182–192. Erez, N., & Parush, S. (1999). Ivchun eichut ktavyad. [The Hebrew Handwriting Evaluation] (2nd ed.). Jerusalem: School of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Falk, T. H., Tam, C., Schellnus, H., & Chau, T. (2011). On the development of a computer-based handwriting assessment tool to objectively quantify handwriting proficiency in children. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 104(3), e102– e111. Feder, K., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development competency and intervention. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49(4), 312–317. Gilboa, Y., Josman, M., Fattal-Valevski, A., Toldeano-Alhadef, H., & Rosenblum, S. (2010). The handwriting performance of children with NF1. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(4), 929–935. Gophna, S. (2005). Tochnit hit’arvut le’shem shipur ha’muchanut l’ktiva be’kerev yeladim ba’alay le’kuyot le’mida, be’beit ha’sefer le’chinuch meyuchad [Intervention program for improving writing readiness among children with learning disabilitiesin a special education school]. Israeli Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14(3), 141–155. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19–33. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445. Hadad Ma-Yafit, S. (Ed.). (2010). Asiya chinuchit b’gan ha’yiladim, kavim manchim la’zevet ha’chinuchi. [Educational action in kindergarten, guidelines for the educational staff]. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education, Pedagogical Administration, Department of Pre-school Education. Hart, N. V., Fitzpatrick, P., & Cortesa, C. (2010). In-depth analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms. Reading and Writing, 23, 673–699. Hoy, M. M. P., Egan, M. Y., & Feder, K. P. (2011). A systematic review of interventions to improve handwriting. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(1), 13–25.

Author's personal copy Early Childhood Educ J (2015) 43:47–55 Kellner, Z. (2008). Mila ve’tzlil [Word and sound]. Modi’in, Israel: Machon Otiyot. Kushnir, H. (2008). Ktav re’i—Hadracha ma’asit me’nisyuni ha’klini. [Mirror-writing—Practical training from my clinical experience]. Israeli Journal of Occupational Therapy, 17(3), 177–180. Levin, I., Both-de Vries, A., Aram, D., & Bus, A. (2005). Writing starts with own name writing: From scribbling to conventional spelling in Israeli and Dutch children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(3), 463–477. Levin, I, Sbardalov, A., Abu Rivka, S., Beav, Z., Bukspan, A., Brown, E. et al. (2007). Tashtit li’krat kria hu’chtiva, tochnit limudim.[Foundations of reading and writing, curriculum].Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/ rdonlyres/2763BC3C-2433-4DFF-AB13-BB2758782AEF/68787/ Tashtit_0175.pdf. Lifshitz, N., & Har-Zvi, S. (2012, July). Ha’shva’a bayn imu nbe’ktiva yadanit le’bayn imun be’mudaut phonologit be’markivay aychut ha’ktiva, be’mehirut u’behana’a (motivatzia) le’ktiv abe’kerev yalday gan chova.[Comparing writing training and phonological awareness training on components of writing quality, speed and enjoyment (motivation) to write among preschool children]. Paper presented at the meeting of the Israeli Association for Literacy and Language, Kiryat Ono, Israel. Lust, C. A., & Donica, D. K. (2011). Effectiveness of a handwriting readiness program in Head Start: A two-group controlled trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(5), 560–568. Marr, D., & Cermak, S. (2003). Consistency of handwriting in early elementary students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2), 161–167. Marr, D., Windsor, M. M., & Cermak, S. (2001). Handwriting readiness: Locatives and visuomotor skills in the kindergarten year. Urbana, IL: ERIC. Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., & Hindman, A. (2009). Early schooling and growth of literacy in the transition to school. In D. Aram & O. Koratv (Eds.), Literacy development and enhancement across orthographies and cultures (pp. 153–164). New York, NY: Springer. Peverly, S. T. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197–216. Rosenblum, S., & Livneh-Zirinski, M. (2008). Handwriting process and product characteristics of children diagnosed with developmental coordination disorder. Human Movement Science, 27(2), 200–214.

55 Schneck, C. M., & Amundson, S. J. (2010). Prewriting and handwriting skills. In J. Case-Smith & J. C. O’Brien (Eds.), Occupational therapy for children (6th ed., pp. 555–580). Maryland Heights, MO: Mosby Elsevier. Shatil, E., Share, D. L., & Levin, I. (2000). On the contribution of kindergarten writing to grade 1 literacy: A longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(1), 1–21. Shaw, D. M. (2011). The effect of two handwriting approaches, D’Nealian and Sunform, on kindergartners’ letter formations. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(2), 125–132. Shimoni, T. (2008). Ha’Ramzor—Choveret muchanut le’ktiva be’shit adidactit chadshanit. [The traffic light. A booklet for writing readiness through an innovative didactic approach]. Rishon LeZion, Israel:Bonus. Skibbe, L. E., Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Jewkes, A. M. (2011). Schooling effects on preschoolers’ self-regulation, early literacy, and language growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 42–49. Stevenson, N. C., & Just, C. (2012). In early education, why teach handwriting before keyboarding? Early Childhood Education Journal, 1–8. doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0565-2. Van der Merwe, J., Smit, N., & Vlok, B. (2011). A survey to investigate how South African occupational therapists in private practice are assessing and treating poor handwriting in foundation phase learners: Part one—demographics and assessment practices. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41(3), 3–11. Van Kleeck, A., & Schuele, C. M. (2010). Historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 19(4), 341–355. Volman, M. J. M., van Schendel, B. M., & Jongmans, M. J. (2006). Handwriting difficulties in primary school children: A search for underlying mechanisms. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60(4), 451–460. Weintraub, N., Gilmour-Grill, N., & Weiss, T. (2010). Relationship between handwriting and keyboarding performance among fast and slow adult keyboarders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(1), 123–132. Yinon, M., & Weintraub, N. (2000). Tochnit hitarvut le’shipur ye’cholet ktiva: Skirat safrut. [Intervention program to improve writing skills: A literature review]. Israeli Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9(1), 17–33.

123