Ensino de Caligrafia nas Escolas

Prévia do material em texto

<p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting?</p><p>A national survey</p><p>Steve Graham Æ Karen R. Harris Æ Linda Mason Æ</p><p>Barbara Fink-Chorzempa Æ Susan Moran Æ Bruce Saddler</p><p>Published online: 22 May 2007</p><p>� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007</p><p>Abstract A random sample of primary grade teachers from across the United</p><p>States was surveyed about their instructional practices in handwriting. Nine out of</p><p>every ten teachers indicated that they taught handwriting, averaging 70 minutes of</p><p>instruction per week. Only 12% of teachers, however, indicated that the education</p><p>courses taken in college adequately prepared them to teach handwriting. Despite</p><p>this lack of formal preparation, the majority of teachers used a variety of recom-</p><p>mended instructional practices for teaching handwriting. The application of such</p><p>practices, though, was applied unevenly, raising concerns about the quality of</p><p>handwriting instruction for all children.</p><p>Keywords Handwriting � Instruction � Teachers � Teacher preparation �</p><p>Writing</p><p>Preparation of this paper was supported by the Center to Accelerate Student Learning, funded by the U.S.</p><p>Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs Grant H324V980001.</p><p>S. Graham (&) � K. R. Harris</p><p>Vanderbilt University, Peabody College Box 328, Nashville, TN 37203, USA</p><p>e-mail: steve.graham@vanderbilt.edu</p><p>L. Mason</p><p>Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA</p><p>B. Fink-Chorzempa</p><p>State University of New York, New Paltz, NY, USA</p><p>S. Moran</p><p>Lehigh University, Bethelhem, PA, USA</p><p>B. Saddler</p><p>State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA</p><p>123</p><p>Read Writ (2008) 21:49–69</p><p>DOI 10.1007/s11145-007-9064-z</p><p>For adults, the act of handwriting is mostly an unconscious, automatic task</p><p>(Willingham, 1998). For beginning writers, however, handwriting is a more</p><p>effortful activity, as the processes for producing letters still require conscious</p><p>attention (Berninger, 1999; Graham, 1999). Until this skill becomes efficient and</p><p>relatively automatic, it may exact a toll on the writer and ultimately writing</p><p>development.</p><p>Handwriting may constrain beginning writers in at least four ways. One, these</p><p>children’s written text may be less accessible to others, because the legibility of</p><p>their handwriting is still developing (Graham, 1999). Two, what they say in their</p><p>writing may be devalued to some degree, as legibility of text can influence the</p><p>evaluation of writing content. For example, when adults are asked to evaluate two or</p><p>more versions of a paper differing only in handwriting legibility, lower marks for</p><p>overall quality of ideas are assigned to papers that are less legible (Marshall &</p><p>Powers, 1969). Three, young children’s handwriting may impede their writing</p><p>efforts by interfering with other writing processes (Scardamalia, Bereiter, &</p><p>Goleman, 1982). For instance, having to switch attention during composing to</p><p>thinking about how to form a particular letter may lead a child to forget writing</p><p>ideas or plans being held in working memory. They are also likely to lose some</p><p>writing ideas, as their handwriting is often not fast enough for them to record all of</p><p>their ideas before they start forgetting some of them (Graham, 1990). Four,</p><p>difficulties with handwriting may constrain young children’s development as</p><p>writers. McCutchen (1995) proposed that transcription skills such as handwriting</p><p>are so demanding for beginning writers, that they minimize the use of other writing</p><p>processes, such as planning and revising, because they exert considerable process-</p><p>ing demands as well. Moreover, Berninger, Mizokawa, and Bragg (1991) reported</p><p>that difficulties with handwriting and spelling led children they worked with to</p><p>avoid writing and develop a mind set that they could not write.</p><p>If handwriting plays an important role in shaping writing development, as the</p><p>arguments above suggest, Graham and Harris (2000) argued that it is reasonable to</p><p>expect that: (1) the handwriting of more skilled writers is superior to that of less</p><p>skilled writers, (2) students’ handwriting improves with age and schooling,</p><p>(3) individual differences in handwriting predict individual differences in writing,</p><p>and (4) teaching handwriting improves the writing performance of developing</p><p>writers. A recent review by Graham (2006) found that the available literature</p><p>provides some support for each of these assumptions.</p><p>First, the handwriting skills of children with poor handwriting are less well</p><p>developed than those of their normally developing counterparts. Their handwriting</p><p>is not as smooth, accurate, or legible (see Graham & Weintraub, 1996). They are</p><p>also more variable in their production of letter forms (Wann & Kardirkamanathan,</p><p>1991) and produce handwriting more slowly (Weintraub & Graham, 1998).</p><p>Second, there is a considerable body of research showing that handwriting</p><p>improves with age and schooling (see Graham & Weintraub, 1996). Although</p><p>overall legibility may peak somewhere around fourth grade (Mojet, 1991), students</p><p>continue to make modifications in how they produce letter forms (for example, they</p><p>may simplify script by eliminating clockwise movements (see Blote & Hamstra-</p><p>Bletz, 1991), and their fluency with handwriting increases by about 10 letters or</p><p>50 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>more per minute, before it starts to level off at the start of high school (Graham,</p><p>Berninger, Weintraub, & Schaefer, 1998).</p><p>Third, individual differences in handwriting predict writing achievement. As part</p><p>of a study examining the relationship between text transcription skills and writing</p><p>performance, Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, and Whitaker (1997) reviewed 13</p><p>studies. They reported that handwriting fluency was moderately correlated with</p><p>measures of writing achievement. In the empirical study they conducted,</p><p>handwriting and spelling skills together accounted for a sizable proportion of the</p><p>variance in the writing skills of 600 first through sixth grade children (up to 42% of</p><p>the variance in writing quality and 66% of the variance in writing output). Of these</p><p>two skills, only handwriting fluency continued to make a unique contribution</p><p>beyond the primary grades in accounting for variability in how much and how well</p><p>students wrote.</p><p>Fourth, even though the research base is relatively thin, teaching handwriting to</p><p>young writers can improve writing performance. Three studies found that</p><p>handwriting instruction not only improved young students’ handwriting, but one</p><p>or more aspects of their writing performance as well, including sentence</p><p>construction skills, writing output, and writing quality (Berninger et al., 1997;</p><p>Graham, Harris, & Fink, 2000; Jones & Christensen, 1999).</p><p>Despite the relative importance of handwriting, both theoretically and empirically,</p><p>we know little about how it is taught to young, developing writers. In contrast to</p><p>spelling (see for example Brann & Hattie, 1995; Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Fink-</p><p>Chorzempa, 2003; Traynelis-Yurek & Strong, 1999), there have been few attempts to</p><p>catalogue handwriting instructional practices in today’s schools. There has been some</p><p>speculation (Graham & Weintaub, 1996), especially by the media, (see for example</p><p>Leo, 2002) that handwriting is not emphasized or taught to young developing writers.</p><p>It is difficult to verify this assumption, as the last published survey of handwriting</p><p>practices was conducted in the early 1980s (Rubin & Henderson, 1982).</p><p>A recent study by Graham et al. (2003) provides some tentative evidence on this</p><p>issue, however. They conducted a survey of the writing instructional practices of</p><p>primary grade teachers randomly selected from throughout the United States.</p><p>Although their study focused on the types of instructional adaptations teachers made</p><p>for struggling writers, teachers were asked how often they taught handwriting skills</p><p>to their students. Almost half of the teachers reported teaching handwriting daily,</p><p>with one fourth indicating that they provided instruction several times a week, and</p><p>another</p><p>14% indicating they taught this skill weekly. Only about 2% of the teachers</p><p>indicated that they did not teach handwriting at all.</p><p>Although these findings suggest that teachers of young children do value</p><p>handwriting and teach it, additional research is needed to establish replicability and</p><p>to more fully determine how handwriting is taught in today’s schools. The current</p><p>study addressed both of these points by surveying a randomly selected sample of</p><p>primary grade teachers from throughout the United States and asking them if they</p><p>taught handwriting, and if this was the case, how it was taught. Teachers were also</p><p>asked to describe their students in terms of their handwriting skills, including</p><p>their facility with handwriting legibility and fluency, number of students with</p><p>handwriting difficulties, and types of handwriting problems. Teachers’ were further</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 51</p><p>123</p><p>asked about how handwriting is learned and should be taught, why children</p><p>experience handwriting difficulties, and the impact of handwriting difficulties.</p><p>Finally, teachers were queried about whether they liked to teach handwriting and the</p><p>amount of formal preparation on teaching handwriting they received in the teacher</p><p>education courses taken in college.</p><p>Students’ handwriting achievement is likely influenced by the amount of</p><p>handwriting instruction provided in the classroom (i.e., more instructional time</p><p>should lead to improved handwriting performance), which in turn is influenced by</p><p>teachers’ desire to teach this skill (i.e., teachers who enjoy teaching handwriting</p><p>devote more time to its mastery by students), and these attitudes are likely shaped by</p><p>teachers’ competence (i.e., teachers with good handwriting and greater formal</p><p>preparation in how to teach handwriting will be more positively disposed to</p><p>teaching it). We tested this set of assumptions by examining if the prediction of</p><p>handwriting achievement (as measured by teacher judgments of students’</p><p>handwriting performance) was improved by adding measures of teacher attitude</p><p>to indexes of teacher competence (i.e., prior teacher education preparation in</p><p>handwriting instruction and quality of teachers’ handwriting), and if this prediction</p><p>was further improved by adding time devoted to teaching handwriting to this set of</p><p>predictors. We examined the viability of this hierarchical model for two estimates of</p><p>students’ handwriting skills: legibility and fluency.</p><p>Method</p><p>Subjects</p><p>A stratified random sampling procedure was used to identify 249 first through third</p><p>grade teachers from the population of primary grade teachers in the United States.</p><p>The names were randomly selected from a list complied by Market Data Retrieval</p><p>so that there were an equal number of teachers in grades 1, 2, and 3. This registry</p><p>contained the names of over 1,600,000 elementary school teachers from over 72,000</p><p>public and private schools.</p><p>Of the 249 teachers identified, 68% (n = 169) agreed to participate in the study.</p><p>Demographic information for the 169 responders as well as the 80 nonresponders</p><p>are presented in Table 1. Chi-square analyses revealed that there were no</p><p>statistically significant differences between responders and nonresponders in terms</p><p>of grade, type of school, and location of school (all ps > .09). No analysis was done</p><p>for gender, as only 4 of the 249 teachers were male. Analyses of variance further</p><p>indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in school size or</p><p>annual expenditure for materials per pupil in the schools where the responders and</p><p>nonresponders taught (both ps > .52). Consequently, responders did not differ from</p><p>nonresponders on these demographic variables, providing verification that they were</p><p>representative of the sample as a whole.</p><p>As can be seen in Table 1, the 169 teachers that agreed to participate were</p><p>distributed almost equally among the three grades. These teachers were</p><p>overwhelmingly female, and 76% worked in a public school. Thirty-nine percent</p><p>52 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>of the participants taught in a school in a suburban area, 33% in an urban area, and</p><p>27% in a rural area. Average school size was 410 students, but there was</p><p>considerable variability across schools. Expenditures per pupil for instructional</p><p>materials was $78.</p><p>The participating teachers averaged 15.2 years of teaching experience (Range = 1</p><p>to 40; SD = 10.2). The average class size was 19.3 (Range = 5 to 35; SD = 4.7), and</p><p>approximately 70% of the children in the participating teachers’ classes were White,</p><p>13% Black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 3% Other. Teachers reported that 37%</p><p>(Range = 0% to 100%;SD = 34%) of the children in their class received free or</p><p>reduced cost lunch and 9% received special education services (SD = 11%). On</p><p>average they reported that students spent 2 hours and 33 minutes writing during a</p><p>typical week, but there was considerable variability in time spent writing</p><p>(SD = 2 hours and 20 minutes). Finally, 53% of the teachers indicated that their</p><p>highest degree was a Bachelor degree, 45% had a Masters degree, and 1% had a</p><p>Doctoral degree.</p><p>Instrument</p><p>Teachers were asked to complete a survey containing five sections. The first section</p><p>collected demographic information about their teaching experience (i.e., number of</p><p>Table 1 Characteristics of responders and nonrespeonders</p><p>Variable Responders Nonresponders</p><p>Gender of teacher</p><p>Male 2% (N = 4) 0% (N = 0)</p><p>Female 98% (N = 165) 100% (N = 80)</p><p>Grade</p><p>First 33% (N = 56) 33% (N = 27)</p><p>Second 33% (N = 57) 32% (N = 26)</p><p>Third 33% (N = 56) 33% (N = 27)</p><p>Type of school</p><p>Public 76% (N = 129) 76% (N = 61)</p><p>Private 23% (N = 40) 23% (N = 19)</p><p>Location</p><p>Urban 33% (N = 56) 31% (N = 25)</p><p>Suburban 39% (N = 67) 30% (N = 24)</p><p>Rural 27% (N = 46) 38% (N = 31)</p><p>Size of school</p><p>M 409.5 430.1</p><p>SD 225.7 259.5</p><p>Material expenditures/pupil</p><p>M $78.00 $80.15</p><p>SD $28.85 $25.02</p><p>Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 53</p><p>123</p><p>years spent teaching), educational level, quality of their formal preparation for</p><p>teaching handwriting, and composition of their classroom. This included informa-</p><p>tion on number of children, racial composition of the class, as well as number of</p><p>students receiving free or reduced cost lunch, special education, and occupational</p><p>therapy services. They were also asked to describe any handwriting instruction</p><p>provided by occupational therapists. Teachers were further asked to indicate how</p><p>many of their children were experiencing handwriting difficulties, identify the most</p><p>common handwriting problems experienced by their children, which lower-case and</p><p>upper-case letters of the alphabet were most difficult for their students and how</p><p>many minutes their students spend writing during a typical week.</p><p>The second section of the survey asked a variety of questions about teachers’</p><p>beliefs about handwriting and handwriting instruction. This included questions</p><p>about who had better handwriting: boys or girls; right-handers or left-handers? Why</p><p>children had difficulty with handwriting? What aspects of school performance (e.g.,</p><p>grades) and personal attributes (e.g., self-concept) were influenced by handwriting</p><p>difficulties? Whether handwriting should be taught as a separate subject (and when</p><p>this should occur)? Whether manuscript or cursive should be taught to students (and</p><p>when this should occur)? What percentage of student learning in handwriting was</p><p>due to directly teaching handwriting as well as incidental learning (e.g., writing</p><p>frequently)?</p><p>Section three assessed teachers’ attitudes about teaching handwriting, beliefs</p><p>about the quality of students’ handwriting, and estimates of students’ handwriting</p><p>skills. Teachers responded to 5 questions, using a five-point Likert-type scale. For the</p><p>first four questions, the scale ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).</p><p>Two of the questions assessed whether teachers liked teaching handwriting (‘‘I look</p><p>forward</p><p>to teaching handwriting’’ and ‘‘I do not like to teach handwriting’’). Two</p><p>other questions asked teachers to rate the adequacy of their students’ handwriting</p><p>(‘‘The legibility of my students’ handwriting is not as good as it should be’’ and ‘‘My</p><p>students’ handwriting is fast enough so that they can keep up with classroom</p><p>assignments’’). Scores for the two negatively worded items were reversed before</p><p>analysis. The Likert-type scale for the fifth question (which asked teachers to rate the</p><p>quality of their handwriting) ranged from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).</p><p>The fourth section asked teachers a variety of questions about how they taught</p><p>handwriting. This included asking them to identify any commercial program they</p><p>used to teach handwriting, the amount of time devoted to handwriting instruction</p><p>each week (and how that time was distributed), the type of script taught, how</p><p>students were organized for instruction (i.e., whole class, small group, individual</p><p>instruction, other), type of writing instruments and paper used, the sequence for</p><p>teaching letters, and how handwriting performance was assessed. Teachers were</p><p>also asked how letter formation, pencil grip, paper placement, and fluency were</p><p>promoted or taught. They were further asked what special provisions they made for</p><p>teaching handwriting to left-handed students.</p><p>Section five asked teachers to identify the modifications or adaptations they made</p><p>for students with poor handwriting. This included a checklist containing 10 items</p><p>(e.g., allow students to dictate written assignments) as well as open ended questions</p><p>asking them to identify other modifications or adaptations they made.</p><p>54 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>Procedures</p><p>A cover letter, the survey, and a stamped return envelope were mailed to each</p><p>teacher during the first week of February. The cover letter indicated that we were</p><p>conducting a survey to gather information on the teaching of handwriting. Teachers</p><p>were asked to return the material in the next two weeks if possible. To encourage</p><p>completion and return of the materials, a two-dollar bill was included in the</p><p>package, as a ‘‘thank you’’ for taking the time to fill out the surveys.</p><p>Sixty-five percent (N = 110) of the completed surveys were completed and</p><p>returned on the first mailing. The second mailing occurred during the second week</p><p>of March and accounted for another 59 surveys (35% of the completed surveys).</p><p>Results</p><p>We first describe teachers’ estimates of their students’ handwriting skills as well as</p><p>their assessment of the number and types of handwriting problems in their class.</p><p>Such information helps to establish part of the context within which teachers’</p><p>instruction (or lack of it) is situated. Second, teachers’ responses to questions about</p><p>whether they teach handwriting, and if they did, how they taught it, including the</p><p>types of instruction provided by occupational therapists as well as the types of</p><p>instructional adaptations the participating teachers make for their weaker hand-</p><p>writers. Third, we examined teachers’ beliefs about how handwriting is learned,</p><p>why children experience handwriting difficulties, and the impact of handwriting</p><p>difficulties. This is followed by a series of regression analysis that examined the role</p><p>of teacher competence, attitudes, and instructional time in predicting students’</p><p>reported handwriting proficiency.</p><p>With the exception of the regression analyses, we examined if teachers’</p><p>responses were related to the grade they taught. Because of the large number of</p><p>analyses, we set the alpha level at .01. An even more conservative probability level</p><p>was not established to help avoid the possibility of committing a Type II error.</p><p>Grade was not statistically significant for most analyses. When grade effects were</p><p>statistically significant, they are reported along with the means and standard</p><p>deviations for each grade.</p><p>Students’ handwriting</p><p>Legibility and fluency</p><p>When asked about their students’ handwriting, teachers’ responses were generally</p><p>neutral when assessing overall legibility. On a 5-point scale (with a higher score</p><p>representing greater competence), the mean score was 3.11 (SD = 1.04). Only 39%</p><p>of teachers agreed (a score of 4 or greater) that their students’ handwriting was</p><p>adequate. Likewise, teachers were generally neutral about students’ handwriting</p><p>fluency (M = 3.40; SD = .92), with 46% indicating that students’ handwriting was</p><p>fast enough to keep up with classroom demands.</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 55</p><p>123</p><p>Handwriting difficulties</p><p>Teachers also indicated that 23% (SD = 14%) of the children in their class experienced</p><p>difficulty with handwriting. This figure is slightly higher than earlier research</p><p>estimates that typically ranged from 12% to 21% (Graham & Weintraub, 1996).</p><p>When teachers were asked to identify the most common handwriting problems</p><p>experienced by students in their class, more than half of them noted problems with</p><p>overall neatness (76%), spacing between words (66%), letter size (59%), letter</p><p>formation (57%), alignment of letters (54%), and reversals (52%). Of these six more</p><p>common problems, only spacing between words and reversals were mediated by</p><p>students’ grade. Spacing between words became less problematic with schooling, as</p><p>80% of teachers reported that this was a problem in first grade, 72% in second grade,</p><p>and 46% in third grade, X2 (2, N = 169) = 15.65, p < .001. Similarly, reversals</p><p>became less problematic with schooling, as 66% of teachers reported that this was a</p><p>problem in first grade, 60% in second grade, and 29% in third grade, X2 (2,</p><p>N = 169) = 18.06, p < .001.</p><p>The next most common handwriting problems identified by teachers involved</p><p>spacing within words (46% of teachers), handwriting grip (41%), uniformity of slant</p><p>(36%), and writing too fast (31%). Problems with uniformity of slant were mediated</p><p>by grade level, X2 (2, N = 169) = 9.64, p = .008, as was writing too fast, X2 (2,</p><p>N = 169) = 10.92, p = .004. Uniformity of slant was only a problem for 32% and</p><p>25% of first and second grade teachers, respectively, but rose to 52% by third grade.</p><p>This is likely related to a change in the type of script being taught, as 91% of third</p><p>grade teachers taught cursive writing, whereas the majority of first and second grade</p><p>teachers taught manuscript (the slant of manuscript is typically vertical, whereas</p><p>cursive is more diagonal). In terms of students writing too fast, only 27% and 20%</p><p>of first and third grade teachers reported this as a problem, respectively, but almost</p><p>half of the second grade teachers (47%) viewed this as problematic.</p><p>The least common handwriting problems identified by teachers included writing</p><p>too slow (25%), posture (22%), placement of paper (17%), prints too lightly (8%),</p><p>and prints too darkly (7%). The percent of teachers reporting these problems were</p><p>not mediated by the grade level.</p><p>Difficult letters</p><p>When teachers were asked to identify the most common lower case letters that their</p><p>students had difficulty mastering, 7 letters accounted for one-half of the letters</p><p>named: b (11%), q (9%), d (9%), k (6%), g (6%), and p (6%). This finding is similar</p><p>to Graham, Weintraub, and Berninger’s (2001) observation that a small number of</p><p>lower case letters are problematic for primary grade children; they found that 6</p><p>letters (q, z, u, j, n, a) accounted for 51% of all illegible lower case letters.</p><p>Nevertheless, the letters identified by teachers as problematic in this study were only</p><p>moderately correlated (r = .44) with the letters that were scored as illegible by</p><p>Graham et al. (2001).</p><p>The most common upper case or capital letters identified as problematic by</p><p>teachers in this study were K (9%), Y (7%), Z (7%), W (6%), R (6%), M (6%), F</p><p>56 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>(6%), and D (6%). These 8 letters accounted for 53% of all of the letters identified.</p><p>There was only a moderate correlation (r = .45) between which lower and upper</p><p>case letters teachers viewed as problematic.</p><p>Handwriting practices</p><p>Is handwriting taught?</p><p>Almost four out of every five teachers (79%) indicated that their school or school</p><p>district required that handwriting be taught. Moreover, 90% of the participating</p><p>teachers indicated that they taught handwriting. On average, teachers indicated that</p><p>they spent 70 minutes a week teaching handwriting. There was considerable</p><p>variability in reported instructional time, however, as the standard deviation was</p><p>55 minutes. For those who taught handwriting, instructional time ranged from</p><p>2 minutes to an hour a day. About one in of every two teachers (52%) spent</p><p>10 minutes or less a day teaching handwriting, with one in eight teachers (13%)</p><p>spending 5 minutes or less.</p><p>Slightly more than one-half of the teachers (56%) reported teaching handwriting</p><p>daily. Another one-third of teachers (34%) taught handwriting several times a week.</p><p>One in every ten teachers taught handwriting just once a week. In addition, the</p><p>average reported amount of time for each handwriting instructional session was</p><p>19.4 minutes (SD = 9.47).</p><p>Teachers who taught just once a week spent 25 minutes per lesson (SD = 10.22),</p><p>whereas teachers who taught daily or several times a week spent 20 minutes</p><p>(SD = 9.66) and 19 minutes (SD = 8.70) per lesson, respectively. There was a</p><p>statistically significant difference in total time of between teachers who taught more</p><p>or less frequently during a week, F (2, 136) = 10.18, Mse = 2661.7, p = .001, with</p><p>teachers who taught daily or several times a week spending more time teaching this</p><p>skill (both p’s < .003) than teachers who taught once a week.</p><p>Handwriting instruction in the participating teachers’ classrooms almost always</p><p>involved whole class lessons, as 93% of the participants indicated that they used this</p><p>instructional arrangement. Seven teachers (5%) reported that they taught handwriting</p><p>in small groups, with another 4 teachers (3%) providing individualized instruction.</p><p>Almost three out of every five teachers (61%) reported using a commercial</p><p>program to teach handwriting. Of the 94 teachers who reported using a commercial</p><p>program, 63% used either the Zaner-Bloser Handwriting program or D’Nealian</p><p>Handwriting program published by Scott-Forsman. The primary difference between</p><p>these two programs is that the former has vertical manuscript letters (i.e., traditional</p><p>manuscript), whereas the latter employs a slanted manuscript alphabet. There was</p><p>no other program used by more than 5% of the teachers.</p><p>What type of script is taught?</p><p>Slightly more than one-third (37%) of the teachers reported that they taught</p><p>traditional manuscript letters (ball and stick, vertical slant). Most of these teachers</p><p>taught first or second grade (89%), but about 11% of them taught third grade.</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 57</p><p>123</p><p>Slightly more than one in every five teachers (22%) taught slanted manuscript letters</p><p>(D’Nealian). Again most of these teachers taught first or second grade (83%), with</p><p>17% teaching slanted manuscript letters in grade 3. Cursive was the most common</p><p>script, as half of the teachers reported teaching it. Most of these were third grade</p><p>teachers (63%), but a sizable number were second grade teachers (31%); only 6%</p><p>were first grade teachers. Italics was only taught by 2 first grade teachers (1%). The</p><p>percentages for vertical and slanted manuscript, cursive, and italics sum to more</p><p>than 100%, as 17% of the teachers taught more than a single script during a year.</p><p>Teachers who taught two scripts a year were equally divided between second and</p><p>third grade teachers who taught traditional manuscript and cursive or slanted</p><p>manuscript and cursive.</p><p>The teaching of traditional manuscript was mediated by grade-level, X2 (2,</p><p>N = 157) = 22.9, p < .001, as was the teaching of cursive writing, X2 (2,</p><p>N = 157) = 69.95, p < .001. There was a decline in the teaching of traditional</p><p>manuscript from grades 1 through 3 (52% grade 1, 47% grade 2, and 11% grade 3),</p><p>but an increase in the teaching of cursive (10% grade 1, 47% grade 2, 91% grade 3).</p><p>What is the order for teaching letters?</p><p>Slightly more than one half of the teachers (51%) reported that they taught lower</p><p>case letters first. Approximately one in five teachers (21%) indicated that they</p><p>taught lower and upper case letters together. Capitals were only taught first by 4% of</p><p>the teachers, and 6% of teachers noted that they taught letters in alphabetical</p><p>sequence. While the majority of teachers (61%) grouped letters together for the</p><p>purposes of instruction, a sizable minority (30%) taught one letter at a time.</p><p>How are letters taught?</p><p>The percent of teachers who reported using frequently recommended procedures</p><p>(Graham & Miller, 1980; Graham 1999; Graham & Harris, 2002) for teaching letter</p><p>formation are presented in Table 2. Modeling letter formation, praising student</p><p>performance, and students tracing and copying of letters during practice were used</p><p>by almost four out of every five teachers. Other commonly used procedures included</p><p>students identifying their best formed letters; students correcting malformed letters;</p><p>the use of arrows, numbers or cues to guide letter formation; and physically</p><p>directing a student’s hand to demonstrate letter formation. Less commonly</p><p>employed procedures were students verbalizing steps for forming a letter while</p><p>writing it, comparing/contrasting how different letters are formed; writing the letters</p><p>from memory, and saying the name of the letter while practicing it. Rarely used</p><p>procedures included students identifying their worst formed letter and tangible</p><p>reinforcement for performance with tokens, free time, and so forth.</p><p>Teachers also reported that students typically practiced writing each letter 11.5</p><p>times during each handwriting lesson. There was considerable variability in amount</p><p>of practice, as the SD was 10.3.</p><p>Grade mediated the use of only one of the letter formation procedures:</p><p>verbalization of how to form steps during practice, X2 (2, N = 163) = 10.15,</p><p>58 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>p = .006. This practice became less common with schooling (60% grade 1, 50%</p><p>grade 2; 30% grade 3).</p><p>What other instructional procedures do teachers use?</p><p>Teacher use of other instructional procedures and materials for promoting</p><p>handwriting development are presented in Table 3. In terms of writing materials,</p><p>about a third of the teachers required students to use a special pen or pencil for</p><p>handwriting instruction. Of the 46 teachers who required a special writing</p><p>instrument, all but 1 of them insisted on a pencil, with 6 teachers requiring a</p><p>beginner’s pencil (this pencil has a larger diameter). More frequently used was wide-</p><p>lined paper, but its use was mediated by grade, X2 (2, N = 152) = 15.09, p = .001, and</p><p>declined with schooling (82% grade 1, 65% grade 2, and 45% grade 3).</p><p>Four out of every five teachers reported that they taught students how they</p><p>should hold a pencil and position their paper when writing. The most common</p><p>procedures for teaching both pencil grip and paper position involved modeling the</p><p>correct grip or position, reminders to use correctly, observation and correction, and</p><p>praise for correct use. One or more of these techniques were used by over 80% of</p><p>the teachers. One out of every four teachers also indicated that they used pencil</p><p>grips. These are about an inch in length, with three-sides (like a triangle) and a</p><p>hole in the middle so that they can slide onto the pencil. They are placed at the</p><p>front of the pencil where students’ fingers should be located, and each side of</p><p>the triangle provides a place for putting the thumb, index, and middle finger,</p><p>respectively.</p><p>Slightly more than one-half of the teachers indicated that they promoted</p><p>students’ handwriting by having students write a lot or through the use copying</p><p>exercises. Less than one in every ten teachers used timed-writing exercises to</p><p>Table 2 Primary grade teachers’ use of specific instructional procedures for teaching letter</p><p>formation</p><p>Instructional procedures Percent of teachers who use</p><p>Teacher models letter formation 97%</p><p>Teacher praises student for performance 86%</p><p>Student traces letter 80%</p><p>Student copies letter 79%</p><p>Student identified best formed letters 69%</p><p>Student corrects malformed letters 66%</p><p>Arrows, numbers, or cues used to show letter formation 61%</p><p>Teacher physically direct students’ hand to demonstrate letter formation 53%</p><p>Student verbalizes steps for forming letter while practicing it 47%</p><p>Teacher compares/contrasts how letters are formed 45%</p><p>Student writes the letter from memory 37%</p><p>Student says letter name while practicing it 27%</p><p>Student identified worst formed letters 15%</p><p>Student reinforced for performance with free time, tokens, and so forth 12%</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 59</p><p>123</p><p>promote handwriting fluency. A small percentage of teachers (4%) indicated</p><p>that they did not view the development of fluency as important for such young</p><p>children.</p><p>We asked teachers about four possible special provisions in teaching handwriting</p><p>to left-handed students (taken from Graham & Miller, 1980). Almost all of the</p><p>teachers indicated that they showed these students how to properly position their</p><p>paper (i.e., turned somewhat clockwise). Only about a third of the teachers</p><p>encouraged these students to hold their pencil slightly farther back than right</p><p>handers or had a left handed person model how to form letters. The teachers rarely</p><p>grouped left-handed students together for handwriting instruction.</p><p>Is handwriting assessed and graded?</p><p>Three out of every five teachers reported giving students a grade for penmanship.</p><p>For many students, such grades were likely based on informal or subjective</p><p>evaluations. Only 6% of teachers reported using a norm-referenced test to assess</p><p>students’ handwriting. The most common reported means of assessment involved</p><p>informal observations (44% of teachers; e.g., ‘‘I note spacing and readability) and</p><p>the use of checklists (38% of teachers). Evaluations to select students’ best</p><p>handwriting for the purpose of displaying it was made by slightly more than one-</p><p>half of the teachers (see Table 3).</p><p>Table 3 Writing materials and instructional practices used to promote good writing habits, enhance</p><p>fluency and motivation, and teach left-handed writers</p><p>Instructional procedures Percent of teachers who use</p><p>Writing materials</p><p>Use wide-lined paper 64%</p><p>Require a certain kind of pen or pencil 29%</p><p>Teach grip & paper position</p><p>Proper pencil grip 81%</p><p>Paper position 81%</p><p>Promote handwriting fluency</p><p>Write frequently 59%</p><p>Copying exercises 56%</p><p>Timed writing exercises 7%</p><p>Promote motivation</p><p>Display examples of students’ best handwriting 58%</p><p>Special provisions for left-handed students</p><p>Paper position 93%</p><p>Left-handed model 34%</p><p>Proper pencil grip 23%</p><p>Group left-handers together 7%</p><p>60 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>What adaptations and modifications do teachers make for students with poor</p><p>handwriting?</p><p>The percent of teachers who made 10 specific adaptations/modifications for students</p><p>with poor handwriting are presented in Table 4. On average, teachers reported that</p><p>they employed 4.57 (SD = 2.17) of these procedures, with the most common ones</p><p>involving extra encouragement, one-on-one instruction, extra time to complete</p><p>writing assignments, and additional handwriting conferences with students. About</p><p>two in every five teachers provided extra handwriting lessons and modified writing</p><p>assignments for students with weaker handwriting. Less frequently used procedures</p><p>included additional conferences with parents, modifying grading criteria for written</p><p>assignments, and using the computer or dictation as a means for composing.</p><p>However, computer use was mediated by grade-level, X2 (2, N = 162) = 12.17,</p><p>p = .002, with this becoming a more frequently used option in later grades (9% used</p><p>in grade 1, 19% in grade 2, and 36% in grade 3).</p><p>Do students who have poor handwriting receive occupational therapy?</p><p>About 2% (SD = 4%) of the teachers’ students received help from an occupational</p><p>therapist. This help was most often described as working just on fine and/or gross</p><p>motor skills (44%), followed by handwriting instruction only (32%), and</p><p>handwriting/motor skills instruction (20%).</p><p>Teachers’ beliefs about handwriting</p><p>Teachers were asked to share their evaluations and beliefs about factors ranging</p><p>from their formal preparation for teaching handwriting to the possible negative</p><p>consequences of handwriting difficulties. A summary of their responses to these</p><p>questions are presented in Table 5.</p><p>Table 4 Adaptations/modifications primary grade teachers make for students who experience difficulty</p><p>with handwriting</p><p>Type of adaptation/modification Percent ofteachers who use</p><p>Provide extra encouragement 82%</p><p>Provide one-on-one instruction 72%</p><p>Extra time to complete writing assignments 62%</p><p>Additional conferences with students about handwriting 61%</p><p>Extra handwriting lessons 41%</p><p>Modify writing assignments 41%</p><p>Additional parent conferences about handwriting 33%</p><p>Modify how written assignments are graded 25%</p><p>Allow students to complete writing assignments on the computer 22%</p><p>Allow students to dictate written assignments 20%</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 61</p><p>123</p><p>Table 5 Primary grade teachers’ beliefs about handwriting</p><p>Topic</p><p>Teacher Scores</p><p>Formal preparation to teach handwriting 1.53 (SD = 1.48)</p><p>Quality of own handwriting 3.71 (SD = .83)</p><p>Attitudes about teaching</p><p>I like to teach handwriting 4.01 (SD = 1.12)</p><p>I look forward to teaching 3.44 (SD = 1.13)</p><p>Handwriting instruction</p><p>% of handwriting growth due to</p><p>directly teaching handwriting</p><p>56% (SD = 25%)</p><p>% of handwriting growth due to</p><p>indirect teaching methods</p><p>43% (SD = 25%)</p><p>Teach as separate subject 93% yes 7% no</p><p>Students develop own handwriting</p><p>style</p><p>57% yes 43% no</p><p>Teach manuscript 98% yes 2% no</p><p>Teach cursive 98% yes 2% no</p><p>Children’s handwriting</p><p>Better handwriting 46% girls 5% boys 49% neither</p><p>Better handwriting 56% right handers 0% left handers 44% neither</p><p>Why do children have handwriting difficulties?</p><p>Motor problems 95% yes</p><p>Visual perceptual problems 73% yes</p><p>Poor motivation 45% yes</p><p>Start school unprepared 36% yes</p><p>General academic difficulties 31% yes</p><p>Low IQ 10% yes</p><p>What are the consequences of poor handwriting</p><p>Students need more time to complete</p><p>writing assignments</p><p>80% yes</p><p>Reduces writing output 74% yes</p><p>Negative impact on quality of writing 68% yes</p><p>Lower grades on written work 57% yes</p><p>Negative impact on spelling 46% yes</p><p>Impedes note taking 46% yes</p><p>Lower self-concept 42% yes</p><p>Attitudes toward school 25% yes</p><p>Negative impact on reading 15% yes</p><p>Note: Formal preparation to teach handwriting assessed on 6-point, Likert-type scale with 0 = no prep-</p><p>aration and 6 = extensive preparation; quality of own handwriting was rated on a 5-point Likert-scale,</p><p>with 1 = poor and 5 = excellent; the two questions about attitudes toward teaching handwriting were</p><p>assessed via a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly;SD = standard</p><p>deviation</p><p>62 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>Were teachers taught how to teach handwriting?</p><p>The participating teachers were asked to indicate how much formal preparation on</p><p>teaching handwriting they received in the teacher education courses they took in</p><p>college. They rated amount of formal preparation on a 6 point scale, where a score</p><p>of 0 indicated no preparation, 2 minimal preparation, 4 adequate preparation, and 6</p><p>extensive preparation. Their average score was below the minimal mark (see</p><p>Table 5). Overall, only 12% of the teachers indicated their preparation was adequate</p><p>(a score of 4 or above).</p><p>Do teachers like to teach handwriting?</p><p>Teachers were asked two questions that examined their attitudes toward teaching</p><p>handwriting. They rated whether they liked teaching handwriting and if they looked</p><p>forward to teaching it on a 5 point scale, with higher scores representing a more</p><p>positive attitude. They were neutral</p><p>about looking forward to teaching handwriting,</p><p>but generally agreed that they liked to teach it (see Table 5).</p><p>How do teachers judge their own handwriting?</p><p>Using a 5-point scale, ranging from poor to excellent, teachers rated the quality of</p><p>their own handwriting positively, but did not rate it as excellent (see Table 5). None</p><p>of the teachers rated their handwriting as poor.</p><p>How much growth in handwriting is due to directly teaching handwriting skills?</p><p>Teachers were asked to indicate what percentage of children’s learning in</p><p>handwriting is due to directly teaching this skill and to incidental learning (e.g.,</p><p>handwriting is learned as a result of writing frequently). Although teachers thought</p><p>that both were important contributors to handwriting development, they indicated</p><p>that direct instruction was more important than incidental learning, F (1,</p><p>143) = 10.16, Mse = 1259.8, p = .002.</p><p>Should handwriting be taught as a separate subject?</p><p>Teachers overwhelmingly believed that handwriting should be taught as a separate</p><p>subject (see Table 5). All of the teachers who taught handwriting expressed this</p><p>sentiment, as well as 5 teachers who did not teach it.</p><p>Should both manuscript and cursive handwriting be taught?</p><p>All but 4 teachers indicated that both manuscript and cursive handwriting should be</p><p>taught to students (see Table 5). Most of them thought that manuscript instruction</p><p>should start in kindergarten (87%) or first grade (10%). The majority of teachers</p><p>thought that cursive instruction should start in second (48%) or third grade (45%).</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 63</p><p>123</p><p>Slightly more than one-half of the teachers believed that students should be allowed</p><p>to personalize the script they were taught.</p><p>Who are better handwriters?</p><p>Although one-half of the teachers thought that the handwriting of girls and boys</p><p>does not differ, most of the remaining respondents believed that girls had better</p><p>handwriting (see Table 5). A similar pattern occurred when teachers were asked to</p><p>judge the handwriting of left- and right-handers. Almost one-half thought there was</p><p>no difference between the two groups, but the remaining teachers uniformly</p><p>indicated that right-handers were better.</p><p>Why do children have handwriting difficulties?</p><p>Motor problems and visual perceptual problems were the most common reasons</p><p>teachers listed as the causes of handwriting difficulties (see Table 5). Teachers were</p><p>less likely to attribute poor handwriting to motivation, starting school unprepared,</p><p>general academic difficulties, or low intelligence. Thirty seven teachers provided</p><p>additional reasons for handwriting difficulties, with 41% of these citing poorly</p><p>designed handwriting instruction as the culprit, 16% indicating that students were</p><p>not developmentally ready to start handwriting instruction, and 11% blaming</p><p>parents for teaching handwriting incorrectly at home.</p><p>What are the consequences of poor handwriting?</p><p>When asked about 9 possible consequences of poor handwriting, more than half of</p><p>the teachers indicated that difficulty with this skill influenced how long it took</p><p>students to complete written assignments, had a negative impact on the quantity and</p><p>quality of students’ writing, and resulted in lower grades on written assignments</p><p>(see Table 5). Approximately two out of every five teachers indicated that poor</p><p>handwriting had a negative impact on spelling, impeded note taking, and adversely</p><p>influenced self-concept. A relatively small number of teachers indicated that</p><p>problems with this skill had a negative influence on attitudes toward school or</p><p>reading development.</p><p>Predicting handwriting achievement</p><p>To test our hypothesized model of handwriting achievement, we conducted two</p><p>hierarchical regression analyses. In both analyses, two measures of teacher</p><p>competence were first entered into the formula together. These were teachers’</p><p>judgments about the quality of their handwriting and the amount of formal</p><p>preparation obtained in college teacher education courses. Next, scores for two</p><p>items measuring attitudes about teaching handwriting were entered into the formula</p><p>as a block. These items asked teachers to rate how much they looked forward to</p><p>teaching handwriting and if they liked to teach it. Finally, the amount of time</p><p>teachers indicated they taught handwriting was entered into the formula as a</p><p>64 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>separate variable. One of the hierarchical regression analyses focused on predicting</p><p>teacher judgments of their students’ legibility, whereas the other concentrated on</p><p>handwriting fluency. The results for both analyses are presented in Table 6.</p><p>In the first analysis examining handwriting legibility, the hypothesized hierar-</p><p>chical model was only partially confirmed. Entering measures of teacher compe-</p><p>tence in the first position accounted for a small, but significant amount of the</p><p>variability in teacher judgments of their students’ handwriting legibility. This</p><p>prediction was enhanced by the addition of the two questions assessing attitudes</p><p>about teaching handwriting. The inclusion of the instructional time variable, did not</p><p>significantly improve prediction of the criterion measure, however. All together, the</p><p>three sets of variables only accounted for 13% of the variance.</p><p>The analysis involving handwriting fluency was fully compatible with the</p><p>hypothesized hierarchical model. Entering measures of teacher competence in the</p><p>first position accounted for a small, but significant amount of variance. Prediction</p><p>was subsequently enhanced by the sequential addition of the attitudes toward</p><p>teaching items and the instructional time variable. As in the prior analysis, the three</p><p>sets of variables accounted for a relatively small amount of variance (14%).</p><p>Discussion</p><p>Handwriting is important because it influences both the reader and writer (Graham</p><p>& Harris, 2000). The reader forms impressions about the quality of ideas in a hand</p><p>written paper based on the legibility of text, and illegibilities may make part or all of</p><p>the text impossible to read. Handwriting can also interfere with specific aspects of</p><p>writing such as content generation, especially for young children who are still</p><p>mastering this skill, whereas, difficulties acquiring this skill may lead some</p><p>beginning writers to avoid writing, resulting in arrested writing development</p><p>(Berninger, 1999; Graham, 1999). Experimental studies further demonstrate that</p><p>teaching this skill to primary grade children can have a positive impact on both their</p><p>handwriting as well as their writing (Berninger et al., 1997; Graham, et al., 2000;</p><p>Jones & Christensen, 1999). Despite the importance of handwriting to early writing</p><p>Table 6 Hierarchical regression analysis for teacher judgments of students’ handwriting legibility and</p><p>fluency</p><p>Predictor Simple R R2 R2 increment p change</p><p>Handwriting Legibility</p><p>Teacher competence 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.015</p><p>Attitude towards teaching 0.36 0.13 0.07 0.006</p><p>Instructional time 0.36 0.13 0 0.471</p><p>Handwriting Fluency</p><p>Teacher competence 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.016</p><p>Attitude towards teaching 0.33 0.11 0.05 0.023</p><p>Instructional time 0.38 0.14 0.03 0.025</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 65</p><p>123</p><p>development, there has been concern about if and how this skill is taught to young</p><p>children (Graham & Weintraub, 1996; Leo, 2002).</p><p>The findings from the current study provide some welcome news for advocates of</p><p>explicit and systematic handwriting instruction for young developing writers.</p><p>Primary grade teachers in the current study, drawn randomly from public and</p><p>private schools across the United States, indicated that they taught handwriting, with</p><p>80% of their school districts requiring the teaching of this skill and 90% of them</p><p>indicating that they provided an average of 70 minutes of instruction per week. This</p><p>corroborates the findings from an earlier study that most primary grade teachers in</p><p>the United States teach handwriting (Graham et al., 2003). Furthermore,</p><p>the average</p><p>amount of time devoted to instruction was generally consistent with recommen-</p><p>dations to devote 50 to 100 minutes of instructional time each week to handwriting</p><p>(Graham & Miller, 1980).</p><p>The frequency with which a minority of the teachers taught handwriting in this</p><p>and the prior Graham et al. (2003) investigation raises one reason for concern. In the</p><p>previous study, 25% of teachers taught handwriting once a week or less (2% did not</p><p>teach it at all), whereas in this study 10% of teachers taught handwriting just once a</p><p>week and 10% did not teach it at all. Handwriting is a motor skill and like most</p><p>motor skills it is best learned through spaced practice (Graham & Miller, 1980).</p><p>Thus, teaching it once a week or less is not preferable to teaching it several times a</p><p>week or daily.</p><p>Of course, the effectiveness of handwriting instruction is not just dependent on</p><p>providing instruction, but on what happens when instruction is delivered. Another</p><p>area for concern was the finding that only 12% of the participating teachers reported</p><p>that they received adequate preparation to teach handwriting in their college</p><p>education courses. Lack of either instructional knowledge or knowledge of</p><p>handwriting development could weaken the quality of teachers’ handwriting</p><p>instruction. College education courses are not the sole repository of such</p><p>knowledge, however, as teachers can obtain information and expertise through</p><p>ongoing professional development as well as through the process of actually</p><p>teaching handwriting. Unfortunately, we did not ask teachers about other sources</p><p>where they may have learned about handwriting.</p><p>Lack of formal preparation in college teacher education courses may be offset by</p><p>teachers’ use of commercial materials. Three out of every five teachers indicated</p><p>that they used commercial materials for handwriting instruction. Ninety percent of</p><p>these teachers used one of the well know basal handwriting programs such as the</p><p>Zaner-Bloser program. Programs like this one provide both teaching materials and</p><p>generally well designed teaching procedures (Sawyer, Graham & Harris, 1992).</p><p>This provides no guarantee, though, that teachers use the materials as intended.</p><p>In any event, there were some reasons for optimism about the quality of</p><p>handwriting instruction provided by teachers. First, when teaching students how to</p><p>write letters, 60% or more of the teachers used the following effective practices (see</p><p>Graham & Harris, 1989; 2002; Graham & Miller, 1980): modeled how to form the</p><p>letter, students practiced the letter by tracing it and writing it from copy, praised</p><p>students’ for correct letter formation, and directed students to correct malformed</p><p>letters as well as identify their best formed letters. Most teachers also taught</p><p>66 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>students proper pencil grip and paper position, including how left-handers should</p><p>position their paper. Slightly more than one-half of the teachers displayed examples</p><p>of students’ best handwriting, whereas a slightly greater percentage of teachers used</p><p>specific procedures to promote handwriting fluency. Just as importantly, teachers</p><p>commonly made specific adaptations/modifications for students with poorer</p><p>handwriting, including extra encouragement, one-on-one instruction, extra time to</p><p>complete written assignments, and additional conferences with students about their</p><p>handwriting.</p><p>These positive features of handwriting instruction are diminished somewhat by</p><p>many teachers not using other proven methods and a minority of teachers using</p><p>questionable procedures. For example, effective instructional practices for teaching</p><p>letter formation, such as writing the letter from memory of comparing/contrasting</p><p>how similar letters are formed (Graham & Miller, 1980) were applied by less than</p><p>one half of the teachers. On the other hand, questionable practices, such as</p><p>verbalizing the steps for forming a letter while writing it or requiring students to use</p><p>a specific writing instrument (see Graham, 1992), were employed by almost a third</p><p>or more of the teachers. Likewise, other than showing left-handers how to position</p><p>their paper, other frequently recommended provisions (see Graham & Miller, 1980)</p><p>for these students were applied by a relatively small percentage of teachers (one-</p><p>third or less).</p><p>Another possible concern is that teachers’ assessment of handwriting mostly</p><p>involves informal techniques that rely heavily on subjective judgments. The fact</p><p>that teachers’ judgments about which letters are most difficult for primary grade</p><p>students did not provide a good match to the letters identified as difficult via the</p><p>systematic study of young children’s writing (see Graham et al., 2001), which raises</p><p>concerns about the accuracy of the participating teachers’ evaluations.</p><p>It is interesting to note that many teachers had misconceptions about handwriting</p><p>development (which also raises questions about the accuracy of their observations</p><p>and knowledge about handwriting). Most of the research evidence shows that girls</p><p>have better handwriting than boys and that there is no significant difference in the</p><p>handwriting legibility and fluency of left handed and right handed students (Graham</p><p>& Weintraub, 1996). Nevertheless, only about one-half of the participating teachers</p><p>thought that girls had better handwriting, whereas slightly more than one-half of the</p><p>teachers indicated that left handed children had better handwriting. Another</p><p>example of teachers’ misconceptions involved the development of a personal style</p><p>of handwriting. Slightly more than 40% of the teachers thought that students’</p><p>handwriting should not deviate from the taught style. This belief is at odds with</p><p>what is currently known. It is almost a universal phenomenon for students to modify</p><p>the script that they are taught, in part to increase how quickly they can write specific</p><p>letters (Graham & Weintraub, 1996).</p><p>We also examined the sequential role of three factors in predicting handwriting</p><p>achievement (as assessed by teachers’ judgments about the legibility and fluency of</p><p>their students’ handwriting). We reasoned that handwriting achievement is</p><p>influenced by the amount of time devoted to handwriting instruction, which in</p><p>turn is influenced by teachers’ desire to provide handwriting instruction, and that</p><p>such attitudes are shaped by teachers’ competence (as measured by the quality of</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 67</p><p>123</p><p>teachers’ handwriting and the amount of formal preparation on how to teach</p><p>handwriting provided in teacher education courses). To test this line of reasoning,</p><p>we examined if the prediction of handwriting achievement was improved by adding</p><p>assessments of teacher attitude to our measures of teacher competence, and by</p><p>considering if this prediction was further improved by adding time spent teaching</p><p>handwriting to the formula. We tested this model for both teachers’ judgments about</p><p>students’ legibility and handwriting fluency. For the most part, the data was</p><p>consistent with the proposed model. For handwriting fluency, measures of teacher</p><p>competence predicted student performance and prediction was enhanced by</p><p>sequentially adding measures of attitudes toward teaching and instructional time</p><p>to the formula. The same pattern was found for handwriting legibility, except that</p><p>the addition of instructional time to the formula did not improve prediction of</p><p>student performance. These findings highlight the possible importance of teachers’</p><p>competence and attitudes towards the teaching of handwriting, but must be viewed</p><p>cautiously, as measures of student performance, instructional time, and teachers’</p><p>competence were reported and not actually measured.</p><p>Finally, we assumed that teachers would be aware of elements of their teaching</p><p>and would be able to relate this knowledge to questions about their instructional</p><p>practices. While there is evidence that professionals, including teachers, can</p><p>describe what they do when</p><p>questioned (e.g., Diaper, 1989), the findings from the</p><p>study need to be supplemented by additional research where teachers’ instructional</p><p>practices in handwriting are observed and not just reported.</p><p>In summary, handwriting is being taught by the overwhelming majority of</p><p>primary grade teachers in the United States. Nevertheless, only a small percentage</p><p>of teachers received adequate preparation on how to teach handwriting in their</p><p>college education courses, and teachers’ responses to questions about their</p><p>handwriting program suggests that recommended instructional procedures are</p><p>applied unevenly.</p><p>References</p><p>Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during</p><p>composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.</p><p>Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing</p><p>disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57–79.</p><p>Berninger, V., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Rogan, L., Brooks, A., Reed, E., & Graham, S. (1997).</p><p>Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition.</p><p>Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666.</p><p>Bolte, A., & Hansta-Bletz, L. (1991). A longitudinal study of the structure of handwriting. Perceptual and</p><p>Motor Skills, 72, 983–994.</p><p>Braunn, B., & Hattie, J. (1995). Spelling instruction in primary schools. New Zealand Journal of</p><p>Educational Studies, 30, 39–49.</p><p>Diaper, D. (1989). Knowledge elicitation: Principles, techniques, and application. New York: Wiley.</p><p>Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of</p><p>Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.</p><p>Graham, S. (1992). Issues in handwriting instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25, 1–14.</p><p>Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review.</p><p>Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98.</p><p>68 S. Graham et al.</p><p>123</p><p>Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology</p><p>(pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</p><p>Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in</p><p>composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational</p><p>Psychology, 89, 170–182.</p><p>Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). Development of handwriting speed and</p><p>legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42–51.</p><p>Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000 ).The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing</p><p>development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.</p><p>Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2002). Prevention and intervention for struggling writers. In M. Shinn, G.</p><p>Stoner, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and</p><p>remedial approaches (pp. 589–610). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.</p><p>Graham, S., Harris, K.R., & Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write?</p><p>Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,</p><p>620–633.</p><p>Graham, S., Harris, K.R., MacArthur, C., & Fink-Chorzempa, B. (2003). Primary grade teachers’</p><p>instructional adaptations for weaker writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology,</p><p>95, 279–293.</p><p>Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on</p><p>Exceptional Children, 13, 1–16.</p><p>Graham, S., & Weintruab, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from</p><p>1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7–87.</p><p>Graham, S., Weintruab, N., & Berninger, V. (2001). Which manuscript letters do primary grade children</p><p>write legibly. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 488–497.</p><p>Jones, D., & Christensen, C. (1999). The relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’</p><p>ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49.</p><p>Leo, P. (2002, April 13). Tracing the roots of illegible handwriting. Pittsburgh Post- Gazette.</p><p>Marshall, J., & Powers, J. (1969). Writing neatness, composition errors, and essay grades. Journal of</p><p>Educational Measurement, 6, 97–101.</p><p>McCutchen, D. (1995). Cognitive processes in children’s writing: Developmental and individual</p><p>differences. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1, 123–160.</p><p>Mojet, J. (1991). Characteristics of the developing handwriting skill in elementary education. In J. Wann,</p><p>A. Wing, N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills: Research, perspectives and educational</p><p>implications (pp. 53–75). London: Academic Press.</p><p>Rubin, N., & Henderson, S. (1982). Two sides of the same coin: Variation in teaching methods and failure</p><p>to learn to write. Special Education: Forward Trends, 9, 17–24.</p><p>Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In</p><p>M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse</p><p>(pp. 173–210). New York: Academic Press.</p><p>Traynelis-Yurek, E., & Strong, M. (1999). Spelling practices in school districts and regions across the</p><p>United States and state spelling standards. Reading Horizons, 39, 279–294.</p><p>Wann, J., & Kardiramanathan, M. (1991). Variability in children’s handwriting: Computer diagnosis of</p><p>writing difficulties. In J. Wann, A. Wing, N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills: Research,</p><p>perspectives and educational implications (pp. 223–236). London: Academic Press.</p><p>Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (1998). Writing legibly and quickly: A study of children’s ability to adjust</p><p>their handwriting to meet common classroom demands. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 146–152.</p><p>Willingham, D. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105,</p><p>558–584.</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 69</p><p>123</p><p>How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? �A national survey</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Method</p><p>Subjects</p><p>Instrument</p><p>Procedures</p><p>Results</p><p>Students&rsquo; handwriting</p><p>Legibility and fluency</p><p>Handwriting difficulties</p><p>Difficult letters</p><p>Handwriting practices</p><p>Is handwriting taught?</p><p>What type of script is taught?</p><p>What is the order for teaching letters?</p><p>How are letters taught?</p><p>What other instructional procedures do teachers use?</p><p>Is handwriting assessed and graded?</p><p>What adaptations and modifications do teachers make for students with poor handwriting?</p><p>Do students who have poor handwriting receive occupational therapy?</p><p>Teachers&rsquo; beliefs about handwriting</p><p>Were teachers taught how to teach handwriting?</p><p>Do teachers like to teach handwriting?</p><p>How do teachers judge their own handwriting?</p><p>How much growth in handwriting is due to directly teaching handwriting skills?</p><p>Should handwriting be taught as a separate subject?</p><p>Should both manuscript and cursive handwriting be taught?</p><p>Who are better handwriters?</p><p>Why do children have handwriting difficulties?</p><p>What are the consequences of poor handwriting?</p><p>Predicting handwriting achievement</p><p>Discussion</p><p>References</p><p><<</p><p>/ASCII85EncodePages false</p><p>/AllowTransparency false</p><p>/AutoPositionEPSFiles true</p><p>/AutoRotatePages /None</p><p>/Binding /Left</p><p>/CalGrayProfile (None)</p><p>/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)</p><p>/CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated)</p><p>/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)</p><p>/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error</p><p>/CompatibilityLevel 1.3</p><p>/CompressObjects /Off</p><p>/CompressPages true</p><p>/ConvertImagesToIndexed true</p><p>/PassThroughJPEGImages true</p><p>/CreateJDFFile false</p><p>/CreateJobTicket false</p><p>/DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual</p><p>/DetectBlends true</p><p>/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB</p><p>/DoThumbnails true</p><p>/EmbedAllFonts true</p><p>/EmbedJobOptions true</p><p>/DSCReportingLevel 0</p><p>/SyntheticBoldness 1.00</p><p>/EmitDSCWarnings false</p><p>/EndPage -1</p><p>/ImageMemory 524288</p><p>/LockDistillerParams true</p><p>/MaxSubsetPct 100</p><p>/Optimize true</p><p>/OPM 1</p><p>/ParseDSCComments true</p><p>/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true</p><p>/PreserveCopyPage true</p><p>/PreserveEPSInfo true</p><p>/PreserveHalftoneInfo false</p><p>/PreserveOPIComments false</p><p>/PreserveOverprintSettings true</p><p>/StartPage 1</p><p>/SubsetFonts false</p><p>/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply</p><p>/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve</p><p>/UsePrologue false</p><p>/ColorSettingsFile ()</p><p>/AlwaysEmbed [ true</p><p>]</p><p>/NeverEmbed [ true</p><p>]</p><p>/AntiAliasColorImages false</p><p>/DownsampleColorImages true</p><p>/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic</p><p>/ColorImageResolution 150</p><p>/ColorImageDepth -1</p><p>/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000</p><p>/EncodeColorImages true</p><p>/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode</p><p>/AutoFilterColorImages false</p><p>/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG</p><p>/ColorACSImageDict <<</p><p>/QFactor 0.76</p><p>/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]</p><p>>></p><p>/ColorImageDict <<</p><p>/QFactor 0.76</p><p>/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]</p><p>>></p><p>/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<</p><p>/TileWidth 256</p><p>/TileHeight 256</p><p>/Quality 30</p><p>>></p><p>/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<</p><p>/TileWidth 256</p><p>/TileHeight 256</p><p>/Quality 30</p><p>>></p><p>/AntiAliasGrayImages false</p><p>/DownsampleGrayImages true</p><p>/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic</p><p>/GrayImageResolution 150</p><p>/GrayImageDepth -1</p><p>/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000</p><p>/EncodeGrayImages true</p><p>/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode</p><p>/AutoFilterGrayImages true</p><p>/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG</p><p>/GrayACSImageDict <<</p><p>/QFactor 0.76</p><p>/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]</p><p>>></p><p>/GrayImageDict <<</p><p>/QFactor 0.15</p><p>/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]</p><p>>></p><p>/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<</p><p>/TileWidth 256</p><p>/TileHeight 256</p><p>/Quality 30</p><p>>></p><p>/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<</p><p>/TileWidth 256</p><p>/TileHeight 256</p><p>/Quality 30</p><p>>></p><p>/AntiAliasMonoImages false</p><p>/DownsampleMonoImages true</p><p>/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic</p><p>/MonoImageResolution 600</p><p>/MonoImageDepth -1</p><p>/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000</p><p>/EncodeMonoImages true</p><p>/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode</p><p>/MonoImageDict <<</p><p>/K -1</p><p>>></p><p>/AllowPSXObjects false</p><p>/PDFX1aCheck false</p><p>/PDFX3Check false</p><p>/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false</p><p>/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true</p><p>/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [</p><p>0.00000</p><p>0.00000</p><p>0.00000</p><p>0.00000</p><p>]</p><p>/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true</p><p>/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [</p><p>0.00000</p><p>0.00000</p><p>0.00000</p><p>0.00000</p><p>]</p><p>/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)</p><p>/PDFXOutputCondition ()</p><p>/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?)</p><p>/PDFXTrapped /False</p><p>/Description <<</p><p>/ENU <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></p><p>/DEU <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></p><p>>></p><p>>> setdistillerparams</p><p><<</p><p>/HWResolution [2400 2400]</p><p>/PageSize [2834.646 2834.646]</p><p>>> setpagedevice</p>