Impact of Handwriting Training on Handwriting Fluency ... · Impact of Handwriting Training on Handwriting Fluency, Spelling and Text Quality in Primary School Children ... Visual-motorIntegration

Sibylle Hurschler Lichtsteiner,Werner Wicki & Péter Falmann

University of Teacher Education Lucerne (PH Luzern)

ImpactofHandwritingTrainingonHandwritingFluency,SpellingandTextQualityinPrimarySchoolChildrenELNWG2Meeting,Lyon16-17November2017UniversitédeLyon

u Handwriting in Switzerland (German speaking part)u Theoretical background u Research questionsu Research designu Participantsu Methodsu Resultsu Discussion

PH Luzern / Sibylle Hurschler / Werner Wicki / Péter Falmann

1942– 2001/2014 2001/2014-

4

u The Not so Simple View of Writing Model (Berninger & Winn, 1996 / 2008)

u Working memory functions as a «bottle neck» in the process

Theoretical Background


Theoretical Background

u Transcription skills have an influence on text qualityu In case of young people, handwriting training leads to longer

texts with higher text quality. (Christensen 2005)u Writing fluency and text quality of children are influenced by

hitherto acquired transcriptions skills and can be improved through training. (Alves & Limpo 2015)

u The developmental process does not end with the acquisition of the letters of the alphabet. An ongoing training throughout the school time leads to better legibility and fluency of Handwriting. (Santangelo & Graham 2015)


Main Research Question

u What impact does a combined handwriting and spelling training have on the fluency of the handwriting, on the spelling and on the quality of texts produced in case of third graders?


Participants

u 175 Children in the third Grade (primary school)u 11 classes

u German-speaking areas of Switzerland, Canton Lucerneu Active consentu Age 107.9 months (Mean), SD = 5.3 monthsu 50.9 % femalesu 89.7 % right-handers

u 26.2 % two or more languages spokenu 11.4 % German as a second languageu 12.6 % with special needs educationu 6.3 % in psychomotor therapy


Intervention

Preparation (6 months)u Training of the teachers (standardized teaching units)

u Preparatory units based on the curriculum focusing on the introduction of principles how to connect the letters

Implementationu Each group got a teacher assigned for the daily trainings

u 4x 15 minutes / week over 5 weeks


Design


Intervention Groups

Combined handwriting and spelling trainingu Training of the most typical connections based on garlands

u Goal: reaching a high level of automaticity and the transfer to written language

Handwriting trainingu Training of the most typical connections based on garlandsu Goal: High control of initial graphomotor skills and reaching a

high level of automaticitySpelling training u Focusing on morphemic structuresReading fluency trainingu Focusing on reading words and paragraphs faster


Measures Prompts and Tests Methods of Analysis

Handwriting fluency: automaticity, stroke frequency and pressure

17 Items on a digitizing WACOM-Tablet

Computer aided segment analysis with CSWin 2012,Mai & Marquardt 2007

Spelling Salzburger RechtschreibetestSLRT-II, Moll & Landerl 2014

Scoring according to manual

Handwriting speed (copying task) 5-minute Copying Task Counting words / letters produced

Legibility 5-minute Copying Task, the same as above

Scoring according to rating manual,Mahrhofer 2004, Hurschler, Saxer & Wicki 2008

Text quality (holistic and analytic score)

Narrative Texts according to a Prompt (30 minutes/ Text)

Scoring according to rating manual «KoText», Heinzel, Kruse & Lipowsky 2012 and «Restless», Wild et. al., in print

Visual-motor Integration Visuo Motor Integration Test Beery & Beery, 2006


Working memory AGTB 5-12 (3 components)Hasselhorn et al. 2012

Scoring through software

Gender, handedness, spoken languages , age etc.

Extracts from pupils' files

Collected by teachersCollected by scientific assistants

Method


Measures Prompts and Tests Methods of Anaylsis

Handwriting fluency: automaticity, stroke frequency and pressure

17 Items on a digitizing WACOM-Tablet

Computer aided segment analysis with CSWin 2012,Mai & Marquardt 2007

Spelling Salzburger RechtschreibetestSLRT-II, Moll & Landerl 2014


Handwriting speed (copying task) 5-minute Copying Task Counting words / letters produced

Legibility 5-minute Copying Task, the same as above

Scoring according to rating manual,Mahrhofer 2004, Hurschler, Saxer & Wicki 2008

Text quality (holistic and analytic score)

Narrative Texts according to a Prompt (30 minutes/ Text)

Scoring according to rating manual «KoText», Heinzel, Kruse & Lipowsky 2012 and «Restless», Wild et. al., in print

Visual-motor Integration Visuo Motor Integration Test Beery & Beery, 2006


Working memory AGTB 5-12 (3 components)Hasselhorn et al. 2012

Scoring through software

Gender, handedness, spoken languages , age etc.

Extracts from pupils' files

Collected by teachersCollected by scientific assistants

Method


Method - Measures of Fluency

NIV – Number of Inversions in Velocity (Marquardt, 2011, S.383-384)

Measure for the level of automaticity of a movement

u Instrumemt: Strega (CSWin - Version 2012)

3

learningprocess

notautomatic automatic


Method – Items of the Handwriting Analysis

3

double loops

dictated sentence


Double loops: stroke frequency

The development is significant over time but not over the intervention groups.

Results: Tablet MeasuresPre-, Post- and Follow-up Tests

11/17/17 15

GroupCombinedhandwritingandspellingtrainingHandwritingtraining

SpellingtrainingReadingfluencytraining

F Time=41.989,df =2/171,p<0.001FGroup=1.034,df=3/171,p=n.s.

FGroup*Time=2.354,df=3/171,p=0.074

(N=175;Meanage=107.9m.,Range=90– 122m.)

Time

Strokefreq

uency(Hz)

Pre-testPost-testFollow-uptest


Double loops: automaticity of handwriting movements - NIV

There is a significant development over time and also a significant interaction effect between the intervention groups over time.

17.11.17 16

F Time=31.214,df =2/171,p<0.001FGroup=.890,df=3/171,p=n.s.FGroup*Time=3.103,df=3/171,p=0.028(N=175;Mean age=107.9m.,Range=90– 122m.)NIVvalueswereln-transformedtocompensateforskewedness

automaticity

ofh

andw

riting

movem

ents(N

IV)

Time




Pre-testPost-testFollow-uptest


Dictated sentence: stroke frequency

There is a significant time effect yet there is no interaction effect as regards groups and time.

11/17/17 17

F Time=47.570,df =2/171,p<0.001FGroup=0.917,df=3/171,p=n.s.FGruroup*TIme =0.213,df=3/171,p=n.s.(N=175;Meanage=107.9m.,Range=90– 122m.)


Strokefreq

uency(Hz)



TimePre-testPost-testFollow-uptest


Dictated sentence: automaticity of handwriting movements - NIV

The development over time was significant, however none of the trainings yielded significant advantages regarding automaticity.

11/17/17 18

F Time=16.508,df =2/171,p<0.001FGroup=1.257,df=3/171,p=n.s.FGroup*Time=0.346,df=3/171,p=n.s.NIV– Valuestransformedthrough1/X2 tocompensateforskewedness

(N=175;Meanage=107.9m.,

Range =90– 122m.)



automaticity

ofh

andw

riting

movem

ents(N

IV)




Results: Level of automaticity (NIV)Pre-test (Baseline)

Comparing double loops, copied and dictated sentences regarding automaticity (NIV)

The double loops are not automatized. However, the sentences show a high level of automaticity

copying task: sentence fast

double loops

dictation: sentence

CombinedhandwritingandspellingtrainingHandwritingtraining


CombinedHandwritingSpelling Reading

automaticity

ofh

andw

riting

movem

ents(N

IV)


Results:Text quality Pre-, Post- and Follow-up Tests

11/17/17 20

F Time=3.209,df =2/167,p=.043FGroup=2.234,df=3/168,p=.086FGroup*Time=1.694,df=6/336,p=n.s.FGender*Time=1.086,df=2/167,p=n.s.(N=175;Meanage=107.9m.,Range=90– 122m.)Thecovariatesinthemodelwerecalculatedbasedonthefollowingvalue:Gender=1.49

Meananalyticalsc

ore

Text quality (analytical score)

There are significant differences over time. The different trainings did not lead to significant differences in the quality of the texts produces by the students over time.





17.11.17 21

Results: Influences on Text QualityFollow-up Test

Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting text quality (Model 3)

Variable B SE B β

Gender -0.23 0.07 -0.25**

WM wordspan 0.15 0.05 0.20**

WM visuo-spatial sketch pad 0.00 0.03 0.02

VMI 0.02 0.01 0.09

Handwriting speed 0.00 0.00 0.02

NIV Composing -0.35 0.15 -0.17*

Spelling -0.02 0.00 -0.23**

R2 .206.03*F for change in R2

*p<.05.**p<.01.


► The groups with handwriting training outperformed the spelling and the reading groups regarding the automaticity of double loops from pretest to posttest. However, the differences did not persist over the follow-up period.

► 5 weeks might be short to solidify the differences.

► Students` handwriting, regardless of the groups, showed a high level of automaticity when it came to writing sentences at the pre-test.

► The training might be too late at this point of time.

Discussion: Handwriting fluency


► Though there are significant differences over time, no interactioneffects were found.

► No correlation between automaticity of a texts written on the tabletand the quality of the texts written in a pen-and-paper task, but…

Discussion: Text Quality

AutomaticityText composed on the tablet

(3´ task)

Number of letters written on paper(30´ Text production)

Text quality(30´ text production)


► Alves, R. A., Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in Written Language Bursts, Pauses, Transcription, and Written CompositionAcross Schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading,19(5), 374-391.

► Beery & Beery. (2006). The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. Minneapolis: Pearson.

► Berninger, V.W., & Winn, W.D. (2008). Implications of Advancements in Brain Research and Technology for Writing Development, Writing Instruction, and Educational Evolution. In S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 96-114). New York: Guilford Press.

► Christensen, C. A. (2005). The role of orthographic-motor integration in the production of creative and well structured written text for students in secondary school. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 441-453.

► Hasselhorn, M., et al. (2012). AGTB 5-12. Arbeitsgedächtnistestbatterie für Kinder von 5 bis 12 Jahren. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

► Hurschler, S., & Saxer, A., & Wicki, W. (2008). Schreibmotorische Leistungen im frühen Primarschulalter in Abhängigkeit vom unterrichteten Schrifftyp. Forschungsbericht Nr. 18 der Pädagogischen Hochschule Zentralschweiz. Luzern: PHZ Luzern.

► Hurschler, S., & Falmann, P. (2016). Trainingsmaterialien für die HA-T-Studie. Unveröffentliche Aufbaureihe für die Automatisierung der ersten Buchstabenverbindungen.

► Jurt, J., Hurschler, S. & Henseler, L. (2016, 3. Aufl.). Unterwegs zur persönlichen Handschrift. Lernprozesse gestalten mit der Luzerner Basisschrift. Luzern: Luzerner Lehrmittelverlag.

► Kruse, G., Rickli, U., Riss, M., & Sommer, T. (2010). Lesen. Das Training 1. Bern: Schulverlag plus.

► Kruse, N., Reichardt, A., Herrmann, M., Heinzel, F. & Lipowsky, F. (2012). Zur Qualität von Kindertexten. Entwicklung eines Bewertungsinstrumentes in der Grundschule. Didaktik Deutsch 32, 87-110.

► Leemann, K. (2015). Grundbausteine der Rechtschreibung. Baar: Klett und Balmer.

► Mahrhofer, C. (2004). Schreibenlernen mit graphomotorisch vereinfachten Schreibvorgaben. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

► Mai, N. & Marquardt, C. (2007). CSWin Version 2007. Bedienungshandbuch. München: MedCom.

► Moll, K. & Landerl,, K. (2014). SRLT-II. Lese- und Rechtschreibtest. Bern: Huber.

► Philipp, M. (2014).Grundlagen der effektiven Schreibdidaktik und der systematischen schulischen Schreibförderung. Hohengehren: Schneider.

► Santangelo, T. & Graham, S. (2016). A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Handwriting Instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 225-265.

► Wicki, W., Hurschler Lichtsteiner, S., Saxer Geiger, A., & Müller, M. (2014): Handwriting Fluency in Children: Impact and Correlates. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72(2), 87-96.

References

Documents

Impact of Handwriting Training on Handwriting Fluency ... · Impact of Handwriting Training on Handwriting Fluency, Spelling and Text Quality in Primary School Children ... Visual-motorIntegration