Handwriting
Instruction:
What Do We Know?
THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT ACCESS ERIC
1-800-LET-ERIC
There is increased emphasis on children's writing
today, but the emphasis is on writing stories and essays that demonstrate
that children are learning to think. However, before children can write
anything, they must learn printing or cursive handwriting. Despite the
influence of new technologies, the computer and the word processor have
not replaced the need to learn how to print or write.
In the search for effective handwriting instructional practices,
researchers have examined the following questions: How are printing and
cursive handwriting usually taught? Should printing be taught first and
then discontinued? What should be done with the children who are poor
printers? Are special paper and pencils necessary? and Is there a single
"best" method for teaching handwriting?
Surveys indicate that it is generally in kindergarten or first grade
where children are first taught to print. Cursive handwriting is usually
introduced in late second or third grade. Instruction typically takes
place as a group activity rather than as individualized,
diagnostic-prescriptive instruction, even though some research supports
the latter approach. Group lessons take place daily in grades one to four,
but after that they are less frequent. The lessons--chiefly practice
sessions--usually last from 15 to 20 minutes each.
Materials and methods for teaching printing and cursive handwriting
abound. The current volume of EL-HI TEXTBOOKS AND SERIALS IN PRINT
contains 63 entries under the heading "Handwriting." In addition,
handwriting and printing have been successfully taught through educational
television, computers, and animated flip books. Other successful
experimental methods have included eye-hand coordination training,
perceptual and motor tasks, and verbalization of handwriting rules (Askov
and Peck, 1982).
One primary justification for teaching children to print is that the
printed letters look more like the typeset letters found in books. This
rationale was taken on faith when the schools taught only traditional
printing, called manuscript, which does not slant the letters as cursive
handwriting does. Some schools now teach newer styles of printing, italic
and D'Nealian for example, which slant the letters. Research evidence,
however, indicates that printing styles do not make a difference--they are
all equally allied to the typeset letters in books. Research also
indicates that cursive handwriting is not as closely allied to typeset
letters as are the various styles of printing (Duvall, 1986).
In addition, some evidence supports the idea that the teaching of
printing should be retained in the lower grades because it is more easily
learned, is more legible, and is at least as fast to produce as cursive
handwriting. Also, Askov and Peck (1982) cite studies which show that
learning to print creates ease and allows the student to produce better
writing.
Since printing can be produced as speedily as cursive handwriting while
being as legible, and since it is obvious that the adult world generally
accepts printing, it seems that tradition rather that research calls for
the transition from some form of printing to cursive handwriting.
While quality of instruction is of greater importance than the time of
transition from printing to cursive writing, some research supports the
idea that second and third graders make a smoother transition than do
older children. In addition, there is little evidence to support the
thesis that poor printers will necessarily become poor writers. In fact,
they probably will not.
The confounding problem is the tendency to confuse neatness of
handwriting and printing with legibility. This is due in part to the fact
that teachers do not commonly use handwriting evaluation scales because
they are cumbersome. Teachers prefer, instead, to judge the quality of
manuscript and handwriting subjectively. Legibility is marked by
appropriate letter formation, size, slant, spacing, and staying on the
line. A child's writing may be sloppy or messy, but still legible. Holding
a child back because he or she writes messily but legibly may not be
productive, since more practice with manuscript does not necessarily make
a child's handwriting more legible. Possibly, teachers should move all the
children to cursive handwriting at the same time, because the delayed
children could lose self-esteem and motivation while not receiving
adequate handwriting instruction (Armitage and Ratzlaff, 1985).
It seems reasonable to use wide-lined paper when children are being
introduced to both printing and cursive handwriting. Several studies have
shown that children's beginning performance improves when special paper is
used. Second graders who are still printing do not need the wide-lined
paper, but second and third graders who are being introduced to cursive
handwriting perform better when they use special paper (Trap-Porter and
others, 1983).
Special pencils, however, do not appear necessary. Research indicates
not only that young children prefer adult pencils, but also that they do
not write better when using a beginner's pencil. Furthermore, by the time
children reach the third grade, they produce more letters when they are
writing stories if they use ballpoint or felt-tip pens (Askov and Peck,
1982).
Although there is a major concern about the difficulty children
encounter when making the transition from printing to cursive writing,
research has not shown one teaching method to be superior to another. For
example, research does not show that D'Nealian, one of the newer methods,
is better than Zaner-Bloser, a traditional method, for children during the
transition. In one study, first graders trained to print in either
D'Nealian or Zaner-Bloser produced initial cursive letters of similar
quality. In another, children in the transition group produced more
legible work if they had had Zaner-Bloser training. However, children in
the D'Nealian group reversed fewer letters (Trap-Porter and others, 1984;
Farris, 1982).
Since there does not seem to be a "best" method, some guidelines are in
order. Effective model handwriting programs have been found to have the
following characteristics: they provide opportunities for students to
verbalize the rules of letter formation and to evaluate their own success;
they also combine verbal and visual feedback, i.e., teacher explanation
and demonstration, with rewriting or reinforcement (Furner, 1985).
Regardless of the program, copying leads to better results than just
tracing or discrimination training (which helps one to read a letter more
than to write it). However, children do not transfer knowledge of letters
learned by copying to letters that they have not yet learned to copy,
unless there is some demonstration by the teacher or discrimination
training. When verbal instructions, such as rules for correct letter
formation, are added to the demonstration, children do even better (Peck
and others, 1980).
Armitage, Doreen, and Harold Ratzlaff. "The Non-Correlation of Printing
and Writing Skills." JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 78 (1985): 174-177.
Askov, Eunice N., and Michaeleen Peck. "Handwriting." In ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 5th ed., ed. by Harold E. Mitzel, John Hardin
Best, and William Rabinowitz. New York: The Free Press, 1982.
Duvall, Betty. "KINDERGARTEN PERFORMANCE FOR READING AND MATCHING FOUR
STYLES OF HANDWRITING." 1986. CS 209 466.
EL-HI TEXTBOOKS AND SERIALS IN PRINT, 1985. New York: Bowker, 1985.
Farris, Pamela J. "A COMPARISON OF HANDWRITING STRATEGIES FOR PRIMARY
GRADE STUDENTS." 1982. ED 263 560.
Furner, Beatrice A. "Handwriting Instruction for a High-Tech Society:
Will Handwriting Be Necessary?" Paper presented at the National Council of
Teachers of English Spring Conference, Houston, Texas, March 1985. ED 257
119.
Peck, Michaeleen, Eunice N. Askov, and Steven H. Fairchild. "Another
Decade of Research in Handwriting: Progress and Prospect in the 1970s."
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 73 (1980): 283-298.
Trap-Porter, Jennifer, Mary Ann Gladden, David S. Hill, and John O.
Cooper. "Space Size and Accuracy of Second and Third Grade Students'
Cursive Handwriting." JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 76 (1983): 231-233.
Trap-Porter, Jennifer, John O. Cooper, David S. Hill, Karen Swisher,
and Louis J. LaNunziata. "D'Nealian and Zaner-Bloser Manuscript Alphabets
and Initial Transition to Cursive Handwriting." JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH 77 (1984): 343-345.
----------
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under
OERI contract. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily
reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Department of Education.
Title: Handwriting Instruction: What Do We Know? ERIC Digest.
Document Type: Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis
Products (IAPs) (071); Reports---Descriptive (141); Information
Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073);
Target Audience: Practitioners
Descriptors: Cursive Writing, Handwriting, Instructional Materials,
Manuscript Writing (Handlettering), Primary Education, Program Evaluation,
Teaching Methods, Writing Instruction, Writing Readiness, Writing Skills
Identifiers: ERIC Digests
ERIC Identifier: ED272923
Publication Date: 1986-00-00
Author: Koenke, Karl
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills
Urbana IL.
|
