Presentation on theme: "Handwriting: a skill for life & learning"— Presentation transcript:
1 Handwriting: a skill for life & learning Prof. Anna BarnettOxford Brookes UniversityResearch Funding: Pearson Assessment Action Medical Research
2 Overview The importance of handwriting (and keyboarding) The place of transcription skills in a framework for writingThe purpose of assessmentAssessment of handwriting speed – an exampleAssessment of handwriting legibility – an example
3 Handwriting – still an important skill takes up much of the school dayrequired across the school curriculumhelps to consolidate and demonstrate knowledgeused for personal notes & assessed workrequired for examinationsuseful in everyday lifenot just used on paper!
4 Keyboarding – another important skill a different motor skill to handwritingsometimes recommended in place of handwritingused more now in classroomsrequired for course work in educationrequired in most workplacesthere are a range of keyboard styles
5 The simple model of writing Common pool of working memoryText GenerationTranscriptionWords,Sentences,DiscourseExecutiveFunctionseg:Planning,Review(Adapted from Berninger and Amtmann, 2003)Handwriting,Keyboarding,Spelling
6 ImplicationsWriting is a complex task so learning cannot be left to chanceWe need to be aware of the different sub processes that have to be orchestrated in order to produce textsTranscription may prove to be a major constraint on progressAcquisition of any skill requires opportunities to consolidate newly acquired skills to ensure automaticity is achieved where possible
7 Teacher surveys Teachers not well prepared to teach handwriting Some schools have good policiesGood practice not always capturedFocus on neatnessNo teaching for speedLittle time for practiceNot clear how to help those with difficulties
8 Who has transcription difficulties? Common in classrooms (Rubin & Henderson, 1982; Barnett et al, 2006)Children with developmental disorders including:Developmental Coordination Disorder (Prunty et al, 2013)Dyslexia (Sumner et al, 2012)Specific Language Impairment (Connelly, 2005)Asperger’s Syndrome (Henderson & Green, 2001)ADHD (Tucha & Lange, 2001)Children with physical impairments/medical conditions e.g. Hemiplegia, Cerebral palsy, arthritis
9 Why be concerned about poor handwriting skill Poor fluency related to reduced quantity and quality of content (Connelly et al, 2002; 2005).Can lead to academic underachievement (Briggs, 1970; Sloan & McGinnis (1992), Simner et al., 1996)Can result in low self esteem (Phelps et al., 1985)
10 Handwriting needs to be: Fluent / Fast / ‘Automatic’LegibleFlexibleComfortableTaught!
11 Why assess handwriting? Identify children with handwriting difficultiesQuantify the level of handwriting performanceProvide a detailed description of handwriting performanceEvaluate intervention programmesAid research
12 Handwriting tests Wallen et al (1996) The Handwriting Speed Test Killeen et al (2007) An Irish Adaptation of the Handwriting Speed Test (IA) HSTAllcock (2001) Data provided from over 2000 students aged in the UK, PATOSS websiteAdmundson (1995). Evaluation Tool of Children’s Handwriting (ETCH)Van Waelvelde et al (2012). Systematic Screening of Handwriting Difficulties (SOS)Hamstra-Bletz et al (1987) Concise Assessment method of Children’s handwriting (BHK)
13 Development of the Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting (DASH) Barnett, A.1, Henderson, S.2 & Scheib, B.2 & Schulz, J.31Oxford Brookes University2Institute of Education University of London3University of HertfordshireFunded by:Pearson AssessmentAction Medical Research
14 The DASH & DASH17+UK normsAge range: 9-16 years; yearsCarefully selected sampleRange of writing tasksPsychometrically soundAlongside revision of Movement ABC (Henderson & Sugden, 1992) for 3-16 year olds
15 DASH Sample Representative: 2001 census formed basis of stratification AgeGenderGeographical region (12 levels)Parental education level (indicator of SES) (5 levels)Race/ethnic group (4 levels)Assistance fromProf John Rust & Prof Susan GolombokPsychometrics Centre, City UniversityCambridge Assessment CentreEthics approval Oxford Brookes University
16 sampling 57 schools Parental consent forms distributed Children selected from returned formsChildren with known sensory & physical impairments excludedOTs/PTs/Psychologists trained to administer test
17 Yorkshire & Humberside UK RegionSampleN%CensusNorth East5710.4254.6North West8615.8549.9Yorkshire & Humberside5610.36511.9East Midlands478.68.5West Midlands539.7509.2East of England162.9346.2London315.75510.1South East11420.99216.9South West336.0Wales264.8224.1Scotland183.3519.3Northern Ireland91.6Total546100.0
18 Five tasksCopy for 2 minutes: Copy Best – write in your best handwriting; Copy Fast - write as quickly as possible but make sure every word is readable.Alphabet Writing for 1 minute.Graphic Speed: Making Xs in circles for 1 minute.
19 Free writing – 10 minutes My Life hobbies music dance friends sports birthdaysholidaysclubspetstelevisionfashionschool
22 Correlations between the tasks Alphabet WritingCopy BestCopy FastFree WritingGraphic Speed.48**.52**.56**.54*.72**.77*.69**.82**.71**.83**** p<.000
23 DASH scoresStandard scores for each task (mean 10, SD 3) and the resulting profileTotal DASH score - sum of 4 primary scales, converted to Total Standard Score (mean 100, SD 15) with percentile equivalentsSupplementary scores:Graphic Speed, Copy Difference, Free Writing ProfileCut off points:1 and 2 SDs below mean for item scores5th/15th percentile for Total DASH standard score
24 Measurement issuesValidity – does the test measure what it is designed to measure?Reliability – does the test give an accurate & consistent measure of performance?
25 DASH & DASH 17+ UK norms for 9-16 year olds; 17-25 year olds Adequate samplesPsychometrically soundProvision of standard scoresAllows for quantification of handwriting speedVarious uses – screening, access arrangements, monitoring, intervention planning/evaluation
26 HANDWRITING LEGIBILITY Important for clear communication‘Legibility bias’ - poor legibility can impact on ratings of compositional quality (Greifeneder et al., 2010)Assessment:Detailed component assessment(e.g. Letter shape, height, positioning, spacing, consistency) (Hamstra-Bletz et al., 1987)Global assessment - comparison to exemplars (Amundson, 1995)No tool for use in the UK26
27 Development of the Handwriting legibility scale (HLS) Barnett, A.1, Prunty, M.2 & Rosenblum, S.31Oxford Brookes University2Brunel University3University of Haifa, IsraelFunded by:Oxford Brookes University
28 Aim To develop a Handwriting Legibility Scale (HLS) for use in the UK A quick, easy to use and practical toolFor primary school-aged children (8+ years)Combining features of detailed & global measuresFor use by educational and health professionals28
29 The script ‘Free writing’ task DASH (Barnett et al. 2007) 10 minutes On topic of ‘my life’‘Everyday’ handwritingFirst six minutes used for HLS rating29
30 Development of the HLSFive criteria based on experience & literature reviewGlobal legibilityEffort required to read the scriptLayout on the pageLetter formationAlterations to the text5-point likert scale: 1-good, 5-poorSummed to give a total score, high scores = poor30
33 Five criteria Global legibility Effort required to read the script best predictor of handwriting difficulties (Rosenblum et al., 2008; 2011)1 – all words legible; 5 – few words legible on first readingEffort required to read the scriptthe rater is biased if the script is effortful to read (Greifeneder et al., 2010)1 – no effort required; 5 – extreme effort requiredLayout on the pagerelates to poor handwriting (Parush et al., 2010)1 – very good layout; 5 – very poor layoutLetter formationa focus for most teaching1 – very good formation; 5 – very poor formationAlterationssignificantly predicts poor handwriting (Rosenblum et al., 2004; 2011)1 – no alterations; 5 – most words contain alterations
34 Expert and content validity 12 experts (teachers, occupational therapists, psychologists)Feedback on wording and contentOverall support for five sectionsRevised wording and instructionsNeed for extended examples34
35 ReliabilitySample n=58, 8-14 years, with and without handwriting difficultiesInternal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha .92Sub-sample n=20, 9-10 years, with and without handwriting difficultiesInter-rater reliability:Intra-class correlation total scores .92Divided into low (5-10), medium (11-15), high (16- 25) categories: Kappa 0.67 (p<.001)35
36 Construct validity: group differences DCD groupn=29TD grouppGlobal legibility2.861.31<.001Effort to read3.521.89Layout on the page3.862.17Letter formation4.002.28Alterations3.04Total17.289.8336
37 No. (%) children with low, medium & high scores on the HLS DCD groupTD groupLow19 (65.5%)Medium13 (45%)8 (28.5%)High16 (55%)2 (7%)Chi square: 31.1 (df=2), p<.00137
38 Further workFurther refinement and clarity of instructions are needed for the ‘layout’ componentMore examples to help raters and improve reliabilityChecking the HLS against a criterion measure – what to use?Data collection on a larger sample & age rangeA cut off point needs to be established to denote ‘poor legibility’ from the total score38
39 ConclusionsPractical tools are needed to help teachers identify and support children with handwriting difficultiesThe DASH can be used for screening/identification, evidence for Access arrangements, intervention planningWith further refinement the HLS may be useful for identification, quantifying performance and intervention planningEvaluation of these tools is an ongoing process39
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.