Assignment 2 Article Review

Word Count 2, 800

Specialisation focus Literacy (Handwriting)

Article 1 - Arslan, D. 2012, Examining First Grade Teachers Handwriting Instruction in Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), pp.2839-2846Article 2 - Vander Hart, N., Fitzpatrick, P. and Cortesa, C. (2010), In-depth analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms in Reading and Writing, Vol.23, Iss. 6, pp673-699

Arslan (2012) and Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa (2010) are two educational research studies that seek to further understand the role of handwriting and how it is taught in the modern classroom. Each study uses a different approach to the topic of handwriting and as such their methodology, results and implications are also varied. In Arslans research article (2012) examines how handwriting is taught in grade one, how it is assessed and how students difficulties are approached. The methodology in this research study relies on data collected from surveys completed by participating teachers. Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa (2010) conducted a research study which compared different instructional methods used to teach handwriting to kindergarten students. Their data collection included both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This research evaluation will examine these two research articles and discuss their strengths, weaknesses and educational implications.

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

Unfortunately handwriting is not perceived to be of high interest to educational researchers. Handwriting is seen to be a trivial area of literacy when compared to reading or writing. This perception has contributed to the limited number of quality research studies based on handwriting in the classroom. The area of handwriting crosses into other domains, such as psychology, occupational therapy and special needs education (Medwell & Wray, 2007, p.11). Research on handwriting is often associated with one of these areas, hence, there are not many quality studies on handwriting amongst mainstream students. Research that has been conducted in the area of handwriting has focused on the nature of letter formation, instructional techniques, and effects on writing performance, effect of instructional sequences on the development of handwriting skills, handwriting instruments, and assessment tools for handwriting (Askov, Otto & Askov, 1970, p.99). Past research into handwriting suggests that the role of handwriting is underestimated in mainstream education. Researchers and practitioners have concentrated on the benefits to spelling of well-formed, joined handwriting, while the necessity for speed and automaticity has been neglected in our handwriting pedagogy (Medwell & Wray, 2007, p.13). Now current research suggests that we need to start reassessing the pedagogy behind handwriting instruction as ICT becomes more prevalent. As the importance of technology continues, current and future research into student handwriting including the impact of keyboards and touch technology such as Ipads. Much previous research has been experimental in design making it difficult to apply the results of these studies into classroom application (Medwell & Wray 2008, p.38).

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

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

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

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

The purpose of this research was to examine the first grade teachers practices of handwriting instructions in terms of teaching, evaluation and handwriting difficulties (Arslan, 2012). The research has contributed to the wealth of knowledge of how handwriting is taught in schools. The results of this study show which letters students find easy to write, and which one they struggle with, that the majority of participants taught handwriting explicitly for two hours each week and that the main difficulties students had with handwriting stem from being able to correctly shape the letters, conjoining letters and bent letters. It also showed that teachers do not differ their techniques to teach students who have difficulties with handwriting to those who do not have difficulties. To evaluate handwriting teachers check the shape of the letters, the level of control the students show, writing on the lines, the overall aesthetics of the writing and the order and spacing of the letters. The conclusions gained from conducting the research in this study are not discussed in any more depth, there is no overall recommendation for future practice or research directions. Each individual subtopic, or question from the questionnaire, is examined separately, is supported with previous research separately and is concluded separately.

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

Article 2 - Vander Hart, N., Fitzpatrick, P. and Cortesa, C. (2010), In-depth analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms in Reading and Writing, Vol.23, Iss. 6, pp673-699

The research study by Vander Hart, Fitzpatrick and Cortesa (2010) evaluated the quality of handwriting instruction, in four inner city kindergarten classrooms in Massachusetts, by assessing the proficiency of students handwriting. It was designed as a one year case study which uses qualitative and quantitative research methods to evaluate the data. Two schools who had a high rate of students from low income families were selected to participate in the study. Four teachers participated in the study, all teachers were white females. The minimum level of education for the teachers was a Masters degree, they averaged a total of 14 years teaching kindergarten with an average of 29 years teaching. There were a total of 69 students chosen to participate in the study, 35 males and 34 females. The results show that teachers did employ a number of effective teaching strategies supported by the literature. Teachers were more likely to integrate handwriting instruction in activities throughout the day and provide one explicit lesson for the week, rather than provide smaller explicit lessons on a daily basis. Teachers felt that they had received very little instruction in how to teach handwriting properly and as a result they did not feel comfortable to teach this themselves. Due to lack of training teachers also had a lack of understanding of effective teaching methods and held common misconceptions about handwriting.

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

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

The results of this study can be used to support the implementation of a daily handwriting routine in the classroom. It shows that there are benefits to students handwriting when explicit lessons are delivered in smaller daily chunks rather than in one larger session each week. The research also emphasises that handwriting programs, commercially brought or not, have to be evaluated. Handwriting programs need to be constructed to allow progression through the alphabet letters depending on their similar traits and difficulties. It is also interesting to note that while the study does not examine in depth the level of training provided to teacher in the area of handwriting, it did touch on the topic. The teachers involved in the study were experienced and yet there was a feeling amongst them that they lacked the skills required to teach handwriting effectively. This could be the reason why commercially available handwriting books and resources were used in the classrooms.

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

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

REFERENCES

Arslan, D. (2012), Examining First Grade Teachers Handwriting Instruction in Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), pp.2839-2846Askov, E., Otto, W. & Askow, W. (1970) A decade of research in handwriting: Progress and Prospect, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Nov., 1970), pp. 99-111 Judkins, J., Dague, H. & Cope, C. (2009) Special Interest section quarterly, Early intervention and school, American Occupational Therapy Association Inc. Volume 16, Number 1 March 2009 Kelle, U. (2008) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: purposes and advantages, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:4, 293-311Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Herrington, J. & Okley, T (2006) Research for Educators, Cengage Learning Australia, VictoriaLund, T. (2011) Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: Some arguments for mixed methods research, Scandinavian Journal of Education, 56:2, 155-165McCarney, D., Peters, L., Jackson, S., Thomas, M. & Kirby, A. (2013) Does poor handwriting conceal literacy potential in primary school children? Taylor & Francis, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education Vol. 60, No. 2, 105118 Medwell, J. & Wray, D. (2008) Handwriting A forgotten language skill? Language and Education, Vol. 22, No. 1Medwell, J. & Wray, D. (2007) Handwriting: what do we know and what do we need to know? Literacy, Volume 41 Number 1 April, Blackwell PublishingRosenblum, S., Weiss, P. & Parush, S. (2004) Handwriting evaluation for developmental dysgraphia: Process versus product, Israel Reading and Writing, 2004, 17(5), 433-458Rowley, J. (2014) Designing and using research questionnaires Management Research Review, Vol.37, No.3, pp.308-330 Scott, D. & Usher, R. (1996) Understanding Educational Research, David Scott chapter 4 methods and data in educational research, Florence, United States of America, RoutledgeVander Hart, N., Fitzpatrick, P. and Cortesa, C. (2010), In-depth analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms in Reading and Writing, Vol.23, Iss. 6, pp673-699