The Impact of Poor The Impact of Poor Handwriting on Written Handwriting on Written

Composition at 11 and 16Composition at 11 and 16Angela WebbAngela Webb

Handwriting Matters Conference WalesCardiff University 9th May 2014

BackgroundBackground• Teachers often report that children with handwriting

difficulties produce weaker stories than their peers.• A strong correlation has been found between handwriting

fluency and general written composition quality (Christensen, 2005; Connelly, 2011; Webb, 2005).

• This has been interpreted through a theory of ‘Limited Cognitive Capacity’ (Dellerman et al, 1996; McCutchen, 2000).

• Improving handwriting fluency has been shown to have beneficial effects upon text generation and composition quality (Berninger et al, 1997, 2002; Graham et al, 2000; Christensen, 2005).

The Simple View of WritingThe Simple View of Writing

Working memory

TranscriptionHandwriting, keyboarding,

Spelling.

Executive functionsPlanning, review

TranslationWords, sentences,

paragraphs.

Adapted from Berninger & Amtmann (2003)

““Capacity theory”Capacity theory”• Working memory is both limited and vulnerable to

disruption.• The many sub-processes of writing compete for

cognitive resources.• Transcription processes which are not automatic

impose high resource costs and may divert vital cognitive resources away from other writing processes (Berninger & Swanson, 1994; Bourdin et al, 1996; Olive & Kellogg, 2002).

• Typically, the demands of handwriting decrease with age as writers become more fluent (Fayol, 2009).

• Handwriting should be near automatic by 11 years. • For children with learning difficulties the demands

of transcription may persist for longer (Graham,1990).

• The aims of handwriting intervention, therefore, should be to reduce the load it places on limited resources (Torrance & Galbraith, 2006).

Longitudinal studies of Longitudinal studies of handwritinghandwriting

• Handwriting difficulties have been found to persist for at least two years in the primary school (Hamstra-Bletz and Blote, 1993; Harvey and Henderson, 1997; Smits-Engelsmann and Van Galen,1997).

• No studies have been found showing whether they continue into adolescence.

• Also, there are none that show whether the relationship with written composition quality persists, and what form it takes.

AimsAimsTo find out whether:1.the handwriting and written composition difficulties identified at the top of the primary school persist into adolescence. 2.the nature of the relationship between the physical act of putting pen to paper and the compositional quality of what is produced changes over time.

Method at T1Method at T1Participants•12 children with teacher-referred handwriting difficulties (6 girls, 6 boys)•Years 5 and 6 in mainstream primary schools•Age (mean = 10.6; SD = 0.5)•12 age, ability and gender matched controls•N = 24

Standardised measuresStandardised measures• Verbal IQ: WISC III-R (short form) (Wechsler,

1994) • Word reading and spelling: BAS II (Elliott, 1996),• Reading comprehension: NARA II (Neale, 1997),• Motor ability: Movement ABC (Henderson &

Sugden, 1992); Movement ABC-2 (Barnett, Henderson & Sugden, 2007).

Summary of resultsSummary of resultsVerbal IQ

All 12 target children were at least of average ability: 8 scored in the superior range; 4 in the average/high average range.

Literacy 11/12 children scored within the normal range or above on word reading, spelling and reading comprehension; one scored 2 SDs below the mean on all 3 measures.

Motor abilityAll 12 target children showed some motor impairment on the MABC: 10 < 5% percentile; 2 = 5 - 15%.

Narrative taskNarrative taskChildren were instructed to compose a narrative to a

picture stimulus in two modes: handwritten and oral. Time limit = 30 minutes.

Scripts were transcribed into typed form then assessed for:

• text length (number of words)• production speed (words-per-minute)• handwriting quality (where relevant, independently

rated) • composition quality (independently rated)

Example 1 (Rated 1 point)

“One day there was an egg and it hatched out then it went to see the people and the people got scared but two people saw him but it didn’t see them then he did and they played football and then some people caught them. the end.”

Example 2 (Rated 5 points)

“Up, high in the mountains of a small town, something no one has ever seen before is about to be born. For, settled in a crack in the mountain, is a golden egg.CRACK!The egg begins to crack.CLICK! The pieces of eggshell have fallen out of place and a dragon is born.The dragon wondered, “Where are my parents?’ He waited patiently for a hundred years, then decided to leave the mountain. Down he went, past a desert and through a river and there lay a town. The dragon had travelled far and now was searching for food. The dragon ate two people straightaway. He liked them and decided that this was his favourite dish. The townspeople were terrified. They didn’t know what to do. But then a smart boy had an idea. He got some scarecrows from his farm, took out the hay and replaced it with stones. “Hey, dragon!” shouted the boy, “Try this.” The boy threw the scarecrows at the dragon and ran. “Yum”, said the dragon, “more people to eat.” The dragon gobbled up the scarecrows and then had terrible bellyache.“Yuck”, said the dragon, “people are not my favourite dish after all” and he left the town snorting.”

Data analysisData analysis

Scripts were rated blind to gender, group and mode of production, using a holistical measure for handwriting quality and composition quality.

A 6-point Likert scale (1 = poorest; 6 = best)Raters were independent educational

psychologists.

Statistical analysisStatistical analysis• A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on

parametric data with one between-subjects factor (group) with two levels (target and control) and one within-subject factor (mode) with two levels mode (written and oral).

• On non-parametric data independent t-tests were conducted.

Summary of results for Summary of results for handwritten narratives at T1handwritten narratives at T1

T1 Target groupMean (SD)

ControlsMean (SD)

p value

Number of words 127.00 (88.74) 150.00 (77.07)

ns

HW speed 12.00 (3.37) 11.00 (4.71) ns

HW quality (rated)

2.75 (1.22) 4.08 (1.31) .03*

Composition quality (rated)

2.58 (1.51) 3.5 (1.16) .05*

* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Number of words produced in written Number of words produced in written and oral mode by target and controlsand oral mode by target and controls

No significant main effect of group (F (1,22) = 0.13, ns) or mode (F (1,22) = 0.13, p = .719 ns) but the group x mode interaction was significant (F (1,22) = 13.23, p = .001).

Composition quality in written and Composition quality in written and oral mode for target and controlsoral mode for target and controls

Results of the Mann-Whitney U test showed a significant difference between groups for the handwritten scripts (U = 36.5, p = < .05) but not for oral scripts (U = 57.5, ns). The difference between modes was significant for the target group (Z = -2.12, p < .002) but not for the controls (Z = -.95, ns).

Analytic ratings for composition Analytic ratings for composition qualityquality

Scripts were then rated blind on 5 measures of composition quality from WOLD (Rust 1996):

1. Generation and development of ideas2. Organisation, cohesion and unity3. Vocabulary4. Sentence structure5. Grammar and usage

Analytic data on written Analytic data on written composition qualitycomposition quality

Target groupMean (SD)

ControlsMean (SD)

P value

Generation and development of ideas

1.83 (.83) 2.50 (.67) .005**

Organisation, cohesion and unity

2.67 (.89) 2.83 (.72) ns

Vocabulary 2.08 (1.08) 2.42 (.67) ns

Sentence structure 2.42 (1.08) 2.50 9.67) ns

Grammar and usage 2.75 (1.14) 2.92 (.51) ns

** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Analytic data on written and oral Analytic data on written and oral composition quality for target groupcomposition quality for target group

Written Mean (SD)

OralMean (SD)

P value

Generation and development of ideas

1.83 (.83) 2.25 (.75) .03*

Organisation, cohesion and unity

2.67 (.89) 2.58 (.90) ns

Vocabulary 2.08 (1.08) 2.17 (.83) ns

Sentence structure 2.42 (1.08) 2.42 (.79) ns

Grammar and usage 2.75 (1.14) 2.75 (.51) ns

** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlational data for Correlational data for handwritten narratives at T1handwritten narratives at T1

Number of words

HW speed

HW quality

Composition quality

Number of words 1.00 .38 .63** .91**

HW speed 1.00 .25 .48*

HW quality 1.00 .72**

Composition quality

1.00

* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

General summary at T1General summary at T1• Target group wrote significantly less less than the

controls and less than they spoke.• HW speed difference between groups was not significant

(though there was a high degree of variability within the target group).

• HW quality was poorer in the target group than controls.• Composition quality was also poorer than controls and as

weaker in written than in oral, but only in the generation and development of ideas.

• Strong correlations were found between the amount of text produced, HW quality and handwritten composition quality.

T2T2

(5 years later)

MethodMethod

• Same 12 target children (6 girls, 6 boys)• Years 10 and 11 in mainstream secondary schools• Age (mean = 15.5; SD = 0.5)• Same age, ability and gender matched controls• N = 24

Interventions:Interventions:number of children receiving helpnumber of children receiving help(data from parental questionnaire)(data from parental questionnaire)

Physio/occupational therapy

Visual perceptualtherapy

Handwriting tuition

Touch-typing

Spelling tuition

Girls 1 6 6 2 2

Boys 3 6 6 4 1

Total 4 12 12 6 3

Standardised measures at T2Standardised measures at T2

• Verbal IQ: WISC III-R (short form) (Wechsler, 1994) • Word reading, reading comprehension and spelling:

BAS II (Elliott, 1996),• Motor ability: Movement ABC-2 (Henderson, Sugden

& Barnett, 2007)• Handwriting speed: DASH (Barnett et al, 2007)

Standard scores for target group and Standard scores for target group and controls at T1 and T2controls at T1 and T2

VIQ Reading Reading comprehension Spelling

* Significant to .05

Percentile scores Percentile scores for MABC-2 and DASH at T2for MABC-2 and DASH at T2

MABC-2 DASH

**

**

** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Narrative task: Narrative task: handwritten and oral modeshandwritten and oral modes

“My Ideal Home” – WOLD (Rust, 1996)“Imagine you could could have someone to design a place for you to live and create it to your exact wishes. Write a letter to that person describing how you want it to look. Include all the details that person would need to know.”

Time limit 15 minutes.

Narrative samplesNarrative samples• Example 1 (Rated 1 point)“My house will be a penthouse flat in docklands

with four bedrooms and modern fittings.”

• Example 2 (Rated 2 points)“ I would like the house to have 5 floors, 2

bathrooms, 2 living rooms, 2 kitchens, 2 bedrooms, 1 spare room, 2 lofts, 2 swimming pools, one indoor and one outdoor, a pond that goes round the whole house, a built-in barbeque, a green house, a fountain, tables and chairs and a waterfall.”

Example 3 (Rated 6 points)“… I want an art studio, big and gleaming white – pristine and full of light. I want gardens, too, one at the front of the house and one at the back, which are large and green with a wooden porch and small marble rabbits running through wild shrubs. I want an artificial lake with a pontoon guesthouse barge in the centre, lily pads afloat and any other sort of water plants you can find. The water must be crystal clear and I only want the most exotic of fish, pearly-eyed with long, ornate fins. I want a beautiful bridge, wooden with some sort of majestic balance, almost as if it were floating in mid-air. I would also like a garden on the roof with a pond and small, sleek, quaint benches with Moroccan stools and beanbags. I want a very African theme for the décor of my house. Lanterns will hang from every ceiling. I am very particular about lighting – I like romantic shades of pink, and fiery gold. Dark is something that won’t exist in my house! ...”

Data analysisData analysisScripts were again transcribed into typed form then assessed blind by independent raters for:

•text length (number of words)•production speed (wpm)•handwriting quality (where relevant) •composition quality (holistic and analytic)

Summary of results for handwritten Summary of results for handwritten narratives at T1 and T2narratives at T1 and T2

T1 and T2 Target groupMean (SD)T1 T2

ControlsMean (SD)T1 T2

p value

T1 T2

Number of words 127.00 258.00(88.74) (142.00)

150.00 306.60(77.07) (84.60)

ns ns

HW speed 12.00 24.10(3.37) (5.40)

11.00 20.5(4.71) (5.60)

ns ns

HW quality (rated)

2.75 3.00(1.22) (1.50)

4.08 4(1.31) (0.6)

.05* .05*

Composition quality (rated)

2.58 4.1(1.51) (0.12)

3.5 4.70(1.16) (1.00)

.05* ns

* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Number of words writtenNumber of words written for target and controls at T1 and T2 for target and controls at T1 and T2

No significant main effects of group (F (1,23) = 0.70, ns) or of mode (F (1,23) = 0.0, ns) but there was a significant main effect of gender (F (1,23) = 10.2, p < .01) and of time (F (1,23) = 58.83, p < .001). A time x group interaction (F (1,23) = 4.88, p < .05): the controls increased more than the target group.

Rated composition quality in both modes Rated composition quality in both modes

for target and controls at T1 and T2for target and controls at T1 and T2

The difference between the target and controls at T2 was not significant in either written (U = 43.00, ns) or oral composition quality (U = 62.00, ns).

Correlational data for handwritten Correlational data for handwritten narratives at T1 and T2narratives at T1 and T2

No. words

T1 T2

HW speed

T1 T2

HW qualityT1 T2

Composition QualityT1 T2

Number of words 1.00 1.00

.38 .63** .91** .78**

HW speed 1.00 .25 .38

.42* .57**

HW quality 1.00 1.00

.72** .48*

Composition quality

1.00 1.00

* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Analytic data on written composition Analytic data on written composition

quality at T1 and T2quality at T1 and T2Target groupMean (SD)T1 T2

ControlsMean (SD)T1 T2

P value

T1 T2

Generation and development of ideas

1.83 3.00(.83) (.74)

2.50 3.00(.67) (.72)

.005** ns

Organisation, cohesion and unity

2.67 2.92(.89) (.79)

2.75 2.83 (.62) (.72)

ns ns

Vocabulary 2.42 2.25(.51) (.45)

2.67 2.83(.65) (.58)

ns .02*

Sentence structure 2.83 3.00(.72) (.60)

3.00 3.17(.60) (.58)

ns ns

Grammar and usage 3.25 3.00(.75) (.60)

3.83 3.58 (.39) (.51)

ns .03*

* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

How to interpret these findings?How to interpret these findings?

Need to look within the group results for a possible gender effect.

Differences on all measures between Differences on all measures between girls and boys at T2girls and boys at T2

F or U P value

Parametric data

Number of words written 15.11 .001**

Handwriting speed 15.99 .001**

Non-parametric data

Handwriting quality 32.00 .016*

Composition quality 27.00 .005**

* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Summary of differences between Summary of differences between girls and boys at T2girls and boys at T2

• Girls wrote more than boys, they wrote faster, more neatly and produced narratives of higher quality.

• The between-group difference in the generation and development of ideas, noted at T1, had disappeared for the target girls at T2.

• The between-group difference was still found in the target boys in the generation and development of ideas (Z = -2.24, p < .05) and also in grammar (Z = -2.27, p < .05).

 

Overall summaryOverall summary1. Handwriting quality appeared to have become

established by the end of the primary school.2. Handwriting speed increased in all children with

age.3. Overall, the groups did not differ from each other

in number of words written and written composition quality during adolescence, but gender was a defining factor.

4. The target boys at T1 produced stories which were shorter and of poorer quality than the target girls and this remained so at T2.

DiscussionDiscussion• The relationship between handwriting measures and

composition quality does persist into adolescence.• Young people whose handwriting had improved had

also improved in composition quality.• Those whose handwriting had not improved still

produced narratives of poorer composition quality than controls.

• Girls in both groups performed better than boys at T2.

Issues for the futureIssues for the future• How can the difference in response to intervention

between girls and boys be explained?• Sample sizes were small. Need for bigger groups for

gender comparison.• Severity and persistence of certain measures, e.g.

manual dexterity may be a factor.• Intervention regimes were not controlled.• Literature suggests effective intervention needs to be

both intensive and prolonged (Christensen, 2005).• Interventions need to reflect ‘cognitive capacity’ theory.

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Thanks go to:• the 24 young people who agreed to be re-assessed for the

study and to their families for accommodating us, • Prof. Morag Stuart and Prof. Sheila Henderson The Institute of

Education, London University.

www.nha-handwriting.org.uk

Effect of spellingEffect of spelling

• Since spelling was found to be poorer in the target group than the controls at T2 a further MANCOVA was conducted on the T2 data alone with this measure as a co-varying factor. Results showed that when spelling was taken into account, the results were similar to those above: i.e. there was no significant group difference (F (1,23) = .10, ns), though the gender difference was still significant (F (1,23) = 7.83, p < .05).  

Narrative task: handwritten Narrative task: handwritten and oral modesand oral modes

“My Ideal Home” – WOLD (Rust, 1996)“Imagine you could could have someone to design a place for you to live and create it to your exact wishes. Write a letter to that person describing how you want it to look. Include all the details that person would need to know.”

Time limit 15 minutes.