Assignment 2 Article Review

Word Count 2, 800

Specialisation focus Literacy (Handwriting)

Article 1 - Arslan, D. 2012, Examining First Grade Teachers Handwriting

Instruction in Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), pp.2839-2846
Article 2 - Vander Hart, N., Fitzpatrick, P. and Cortesa, C. (2010), In-depth
analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten
classrooms in Reading and Writing, Vol.23, Iss. 6, pp673-699

Arslan (2012) and Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa (2010) are two
educational research studies that seek to further understand the role of
handwriting and how it is taught in the modern classroom. Each study uses a
different approach to the topic of handwriting and as such their methodology,
results and implications are also varied. In Arslans research article (2012)
examines how handwriting is taught in grade one, how it is assessed and how
students difficulties are approached. The methodology in this research study
relies on data collected from surveys completed by participating teachers.
Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa (2010) conducted a research study which
compared different instructional

methods used

to teach

handwriting to

kindergarten students. Their data collection included both qualitative and

quantitative research methods. This research evaluation will examine these two
research articles and discuss their strengths, weaknesses and educational
implications.

Handwriting is a literacy skill that enables students to communicate with their

teachers and peer and a way for students to share their thoughts. W riting is also
important as it is often required for students to demonstrate their knowledge
during assessments (Judkins, Dague & Cope, 2009, p.1). Handwriting requires
students to form letters properly, build fine motor skills, commit letter formation
to memory, and be able to hold information in their short term memory while
retaining other information such as writing content (Medwell & Wray, 2007,
p.11). If a student has difficulties with their handwriting then this will impact their
writing ability, reading ability, and self-esteem. The memory and thought
processes required for the mechanics of handwriting, if the process has not
become automatic, inhibits the students ability to focus on planning writing
composition and editing their work (McCarney, Peters, Jackson, Thomas, Kirby,
2013) (Judkins, Dague, & Cope, 2009). These facts are important because is it
estimated that 10-30 percent of students have difficulties with handwriting
(Rosenblum, Weiss, Parush, 2004, p.1).

Unfortunately handwriting is not perceived to be of high interest to educational

researchers. Handwriting is seen to be a trivial area of literacy when compared to
reading or writing. This perception has contributed to the limited number of
quality research studies based on handwriting in the classroom. The area of
handwriting crosses into other domains, such as psychology, occupational
therapy and special needs education (Medwell & Wray, 2007, p.11). Research on
handwriting is often associated with one of these areas, hence, there are not
many quality studies on handwriting amongst mainstream students. Research
that has been conducted in the area of handwriting has focused on the nature of
letter formation, instructional techniques, and effects on writing performance,
effect of instructional sequences on the development of handwriting skills,
handwriting instruments, and assessment tools for handwriting (Askov, Otto &
Askov, 1970, p.99). Past research into handwriting suggests that the role of
handwriting is underestimated in mainstream education. Researchers and
practitioners have concentrated on the benefits to spelling of well-formed, joined
handwriting, while the necessity for speed and automaticity has been neglected
in our handwriting pedagogy (Medwell & Wray, 2007, p.13). Now current
research suggests that we need to start reassessing the pedagogy behind

handwriting instruction as ICT becomes more prevalent. As the importance of

technology continues, current and future research into student handwriting
including the impact of keyboards and touch technology such as Ipads. Much
previous research has been experimental in design making it difficult to apply
the results of these studies into classroom application (Medwell & Wray 2008,
p.38).

Article 1 - Arslan, D. 2012, Examining First Grade Teachers Handwriting

Instruction in Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), pp.2839-2846
The study by Arslan (2012) takes place in Turkey and has a very broad research
question with a general focus on handwriting, how is handwriting taught in
primary schools? The question is divided into three different sub questions; what
strategies do first grade teachers taught handwriting to students, how teachers
evaluate handwriting and how they approach difficulties students have with
handwriting. To do this Arslan used a phenomenological approach to the study
and used a qualitative study design that employed interviews as its primary data
gathering source. The 54 participants chosen were randomly selected from the
year 1 teacher population in Burdur and included teachers with varied teaching
experience. The collected data was coded and interrelater reliability was
employed to increase the reliability of the study. The data was analysed using a
simple frequency count.

Using a Phenomenological analysis gives priority to the personal accounts of the

selected teachers in this study. However this means that these accounts are also
subjective. This subjectiveness includes the consciousness of the individual,
unacknowledged conditions, unintended consequences, the exercises of tacit
skills, and the unconscious motivation (Scott, & Usher, 1996, p. 65). This
subjectivity results in limitations in the data, gaps exist between: the
interviewer and interviewee, between the interviewees account and those
perspective and intentions which preceded the activities being described, and
fundamentally between the interviewers account in whatever form, and what
really happened (Scott & Usher, 1996, p.66. To overcome these limitations
Arslan has done two key things; eliminated the role of the interviewer by posting
the questionnaire to participants, and to bring in other experts to interpret data.

There were no samples of the questions asked of participants included in the

study, so it is not possible to assess what type of questions were asked, only
general themes and answers to the questions were published. The number of
responses to each question were provided so it is possible to know how many
participants in the selection sample answered the questions in the same way.
However, as there is no sample of the questionnaire, it is not known if the
participants were asked to select from specific answers or if they were able to
provide answers of their own. One of the questions asked the teachers how often
they teach handwriting, four (7.4%) of the participants stated that they teach
handwriting in all their lessons. Either the teachers who answered this way were
mistaken as the questions intention, or are incorrectly answering the question to
serve a different means. Teachers were asked to determine the letters which
students find the most difficult, yet there is no indication as to how the teachers
achieved this and if this method was varied between individual teachers, as the
study shows there are nineteen different ways to assess their students
handwriting.

Another limitation is the authors lack of addressing the limitations that exist
when using data collection methods such as questionnaires. When using a
questionnaire you will never be sure whether the respondents have understood
your questions, or indeed, whether they have taken the time to provide accurate
data (Rowley, 2014, p.314). The author has not provided any details of how they
plan to address this in their study. Another limitation of using questionnaires as a
method for collecting research data is that there is always the possibility of
unanswered questions (Rowley, 2014, p.314). It is not stated whether or not this
occurred in this study. If any advice or instructions were provided to the
participants before they commenced the questionnaire this is not provided
either. Over all the design of the data gathering method is very vague and limits
the integrity of the data collected.

The purpose of this research was to examine the first grade teachers practices
of handwriting instructions in terms of teaching, evaluation and handwriting
difficulties (Arslan, 2012). The research has contributed to the wealth of

knowledge of how handwriting is taught in schools. The results of this study show
which letters students find easy to write, and which one they struggle with, that
the majority of participants taught handwriting explicitly for two hours each week
and that the main difficulties students had with handwriting stem from being
able to correctly shape the letters, conjoining letters and bent letters. It also
showed that teachers do not differ their techniques to teach students who have
difficulties with handwriting to those who do not have difficulties. To evaluate
handwriting teachers check the shape of the letters, the level of control the
students show, writing on the lines, the overall aesthetics of the writing and the
order and spacing of the letters. The conclusions gained from conducting the
research in this study are not discussed in any more depth, there is no overall
recommendation for future practice or research directions. Each individual
subtopic, or question from the questionnaire, is examined separately, is
supported with previous research separately and is concluded separately.

The authors discussion of their results is very limited and relies heavily on the
support of previous research. There is a significant linking to prior relevant
research in the discussion that supports the validity of the results in this study.
The study is valid in that it provides the reader with a reliable glimpse into the
practices of teachers in relation to handwriting practice. This glimpse is very
brief, very broad and relies heavily on the interpretations of the teachers alone.
However, since the study did not set out to provide anything other than an
overview it is valid as it has achieved this. The results of this research can be
generalised as issues that teachers face in turkey in respect to handwriting
practice in the classroom will reflect those that teachers elsewhere in the world
may have. The difficulties that students have in relation to difficult letters and
the aesthetics of handwriting are universal in nature. Whether or not teachers in
Turkey and teachers in Australia use the same strategies to overcome these
difficulties could be a possible area for future research.

Article 2 - Vander Hart, N., Fitzpatrick, P. and Cortesa, C. (2010), In-depth

analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten
classrooms in Reading and Writing, Vol.23, Iss. 6, pp673-699

The research study by Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa (2010) evaluated the
quality of handwriting instruction, in four inner city kindergarten classrooms in
Massachusetts, by assessing the proficiency of students handwriting. It was
designed as a one year case study which uses qualitative and quantitative
research methods to evaluate the data. Two schools who had a high rate of
students from low income families were selected to participate in the study. Four
teachers participated in the study, all teachers were white females. The
minimum level of education for the teachers was a Masters degree, they
averaged a total of 14 years teaching kindergarten with an average of 29 years
teaching. There were a total of 69 students chosen to participate in the study, 35
males and 34 females. The results show that teachers did employ a number of
effective teaching strategies supported by the literature. Teachers were more
likely to integrate handwriting instruction in activities throughout the day and
provide one explicit lesson for the week, rather than provide smaller explicit
lessons on a daily basis.

Teachers felt that they had received very little

instruction in how to teach handwriting properly and as a result they did not feel
comfortable to teach this themselves. Due to lack of training teachers also had a
lack of understanding of effective teaching methods and held common
misconceptions about handwriting.

The study used a wide variety of data collecting methods, this included teacher
surveys, teacher logs and lesson plans, teacher interviews, weekly classroom
schedules, handwriting curriculum, classroom observations, students end of year
writing samples and student report cards. These data collecting methods has
created a study which uses mixed methods of research, combining qualitative
and quantitative research methods. This can increase the reliability of research
as the limitations posed from one method will be counteracted with the strengths
in another (Lund, 2001, p.157) (Kelle, 2008, p.293). This also sees the inferences
and conclusions strengthen if they are supported from the results of varied data
collection methods (Lund, 2011, p.157). While this mixed method approach do
limit some of the limitations of data collection methods, there are still limitations
that can be found. The teacher surveys, weekly classroom schedules and lesson
plans are subjective to the teachers participation and honesty. It is not possible
to know if what was written on the lesson plan is what was exercised in the

classroom. Surveys are also subjective depending on participant honesty and the
design of the survey.

This study is very well designed but that does not mean that it is without its
limitations. For example, one data collecting method used was observation.
Observation has its own limitations, these include limitations from the
researchers presence in the classroom as this could be seen as an intrusion by
the teacher or students. It is also possible that events maybe perceived by the
observer differently from what is actually happening due to researcher bias,
some information may be observed that cannot be reported and a researcher
may not notice key happenings (Kervin, Vialle, Herrington & Okley 2006, p.86).
The authors of this study trained observers to observe particular things that they
were looking for in the classroom and in relation to teacher practice. The
observers in these observations reported that there was a decrease in use of
corrective feedback during the later parts of the school year (Vander Hart,
Fitzpatrick and Cortesa, 2010 p.691). In fact the results from the observations
showed that there was a decrease in all the instructional practices the observers
noted, this includes modelling, guided practice, corrective feedback and
independent practice (Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa, 2010). Analysis of
the classroom observation notes reveals that teachers did give some individual
children corrections but the teachers did not frequently walk around the room to
monitor childrens writing during independent practice. In addition, the observers
never saw the teachers collect completed handwriting worksheets or return
corrected papers during the literacy block observations (Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick
and Cortesa (2010, p.693). Obviously the observers were asked to specifically
observe if the teachers marked the students work on the spot and provided
formative feedback. The observers expected the teachers to monitor the
students activities by walking around the room and observing students
completing their tasks. This data is further limited as observations only occurred
for one literacy block during the case study.

The results of this study can be used to support the implementation of a daily
handwriting routine in the classroom. It shows that there are benefits to
students handwriting when explicit lessons are delivered in smaller daily chunks
rather than in one larger session each week. The research also emphasises that

handwriting programs, commercially brought or not, have to be evaluated.

Handwriting programs need to be constructed to allow progression through the
alphabet letters depending on their similar traits and difficulties.

It is also

interesting to note that while the study does not examine in depth the level of
training provided to teacher in the area of handwriting, it did touch on the topic.
The teachers involved in the study were experienced and yet there was a feeling
amongst them that they lacked the skills required to teach handwriting
effectively. This could be the reason why commercially available handwriting
books and resources were used in the classrooms.

The authors have supported their conclusions by making connections to the work
of Steven Graham, an expert in childhood literacy. The study showed that
teachers relied heavily on the commercially available material for handwriting
which did not always incorporate best practice. They suggest that a district wide
approach is needed, more training for teachers is required and that teachers
need to be provided with appropriate assessment tools for handwriting. In their
conclusion Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa (2010) suggested possibilities for
future research, questions such as do handwriting and reading programs used in
primary schools complement each other? Future research could explore
widespread prevalence of commercially available handwriting instruction and
analyse these curriculums and discuss how well these reflect the best
handwriting instructions found in the literature. This study also contributes to
this particular area of research by providing an excellent study for future
researchers to use to support their own findings in similar cases.

Research on handwriting was previously a minor topic for researchers. Now its
importance has been revised as there is a trend towards replacing handwriting
with more technological based activities such as typing. . Research into the area
of handwriting is important in the improvement of handwriting instruction,
assessment and interventions. Employing the research methods from both
qualitative and quantitative research is one way to overcome the limitations that
inherently come with data collection methods. This has been show in the
research article by Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa as they employed mixed
method based research in their study. This is not to say that research such as
that conducted by Arslan is unreliable and less valid. Phenomenologically

designed research provides a personal account of the situation and takes into
considerations the skills and abilities of the teachers and students, while also
noting the limitations teachers face in relation to training, budgets and time.

REFERENCES

Arslan, D. (2012), Examining First Grade Teachers Handwriting Instruction in

Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), pp.2839-2846
Askov, E., Otto, W. & Askow, W. (1970) A decade of research in handwriting:
Progress and Prospect, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 64, No.
3 (Nov., 1970), pp. 99-111
Judkins, J., Dague, H. & Cope, C. (2009) Special Interest section quarterly, Early
intervention and school, American Occupational Therapy Association Inc.
Volume 16, Number 1 March 2009
Kelle, U. (2008) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research
practice: purposes and advantages, Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3:4, 293-311
Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Herrington, J. & Okley, T (2006) Research for Educators,
Cengage Learning Australia, Victoria
Lund, T. (2011) Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: Some
arguments for mixed methods research, Scandinavian Journal of
Education, 56:2, 155-165
McCarney, D., Peters, L., Jackson, S., Thomas, M. & Kirby, A. (2013) Does poor
handwriting conceal literacy potential in primary school children? Taylor
& Francis, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
Vol. 60, No. 2, 105118
Medwell, J. & Wray, D. (2008) Handwriting A forgotten language skill?
Language and Education, Vol. 22, No. 1
Medwell, J. & Wray, D. (2007) Handwriting: what do we know and what do we
need to know? Literacy, Volume 41 Number 1 April, Blackwell Publishing
Rosenblum, S., Weiss, P. & Parush, S. (2004) Handwriting evaluation for
developmental dysgraphia: Process versus product, Israel Reading and
Writing, 2004, 17(5), 433-458
Rowley, J. (2014) Designing and using research questionnaires Management
Research Review, Vol.37, No.3, pp.308-330
Scott, D. & Usher, R. (1996) Understanding Educational Research, David Scott
chapter 4 methods and data in educational research, Florence, United
States of America, Routledge
Vander Hart, N., Fitzpatrick, P. and Cortesa, C. (2010), In-depth analysis of
handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms
in Reading and Writing, Vol.23, Iss. 6, pp673-699