I. Introduction
Between 1935 and 1949, most elementary schools in the United States used manuscript handwriting the introductory form of handwriting for first and second grades, and switched to cursive handwriting between the latter half of second grade to fourth grade (Herrick 1961). This tradition continued in most school settings until the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate of 2001. In 2001, the federal mandate NCLB went into effect to ensure evidence-based public school achievement throughout the United States. Standardized testing in specific subjects, such as reading, writing, math, and science, were then put into place to retrieve evidence based data and distribute federal funds according to achievement scores. These standards were implemented to ensure educational competitiveness internationally and improve college and work readiness after high school (Klein 2015). In an effort to create standard state guidelines for elementary public school instruction, in 2009, the common core curriculum was introduced throughout the United States (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 2010). Many states adopted the common core standards to comply with federal and state guidelines for school performance. This creates a top-down approach to education with the ultimate goal being college or job proficiency, and educational guidelines being instituted at various grade levels to reach that proficiency in math, science, reading, and composition. However, common core standards only focus on academic instruction and do not include an explicit component for handwriting instruction, leaving implementation for handwriting instructions to individual schools (Collette, Anson, Halabi, Schlierman, and Suriner 2017). Thus, many schools have diminished manual handwriting instruction and opted out of cursive handwriting instruction in order to extend academic learning opportunities.
The great handwriting debate challenges the importance of handwriting instruction in schools. It is particularly significant to occupational therapy practitioners as more and more children are being referred to occupational therapy for fine motor and handwriting issues (Cahill 2009). The primary occupation for elementary school children is school success in writing. It is a basic skill that is built upon for learning subjects such as spelling, language arts, math, science, or social studies (Collette, Anson, Halabi, Schlierman, and Suriner 2017). Children must be proficient writers to be successful in these subjects. The focus for occupational therapy intervention in school systems becomes more about handwriting intervention for school success versus other issues that may impact a child’s performance (Collette, Anson, Halabi, Schlierman, and Suriner 2017). Thus, it is essential for schools to incorporate formal manual handwriting programs to ensure consistency in teaching handwriting so that true fine motor issues and other occupational performance issues can be addressed appropriately by the occupational therapist (Asher 2006). Nevertheless, as schools struggle to maintain federal funding measured through standardized testing, and technology and innovation are adapting learning and writing styles, the push to minimize the importance of handwriting instruction exists.
II. Argument
The arguments to incorporate standardized handwriting instruction in early elementary curricula include: utilization of developmentally appropriate instruction for both typically developing and special needs children is important for foundational skills in writing; consistent, holistic instruction improves visual, perceptual, cognitive, and motor functioning; and consistency in instruction improves performance in handwriting and increases self-esteem and personal accomplishment in academic tasks.
A. Argument #1
Handwriting is a cornerstone component of academic learning in early school education (Cahill 2009). From the Model of Human Occupation (MOHO), volition and habituation play a significant role in the occupational performance patterns of handwriting (Moskowitz 2016). Children have a natural curiosity and desire to use tools to draw, make a mark, or imitate adults in writing. Young children are often taught letter recognition and beginning writing in preschool beginning at age three. Because of the pressures of complying with state common core standards, written outcome expectations for children have risen for each grade level. Preschool teachers feel pressured to send their students to kindergarten with the knowledge of writing capital and lower case letters in preparation for the academic work of elementary school (Hatcher, Nuner, Paulsel 2012). However, developmental readiness for writing, as seen by proper grip, spacing, and line formation, does not typically occur until age four to four years seven months (Schwellnus, Cameron, and Carnahan 2012). In addition, in a study using the Beery Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI) found that proficiency in copying the first nine shapes of the test typically at five years, three months old. Waiting for developmental proficiency to introduce writing was linked to better handwriting in children in first grade (Schwellnus, Cameron, and Carnahan 2012). If pushed to write too early, young children between the ages of four to six may experience handwriting difficulties due to the immature visual perceptual skills and hand motor coordination (Preminger, Weiss and Weintraub 2004). Returning to the MOHO model, if children are given incorrect or minimal instruction in handwriting as young writers, then the grip and fine motor patterns become habituated and perpetuated throughout school years. These patterns lead to inefficiency, inaccuracy, and illegibility (Moskowitz 2016). Thus, a bottoms-up approach to handwriting instruction would better serve young children initially being introduced to writing by emphasizing the foundational skills of posture, proper grip on appropriately sized tools, and crossing midline (Schwellnus, Cameron, and Carnahan 2012). A systematic, fun, multi-sensory curriculum that engages the young child with a developmentally appropriate introduction to letter formation allows for optimal learning and retention of writing skills (Robinson and Penman 2011).
B. Argument #2
Handwriting encompasses many different body systems, and coordination to accomplish effective handwriting is a complex process. Memory, sequencing, language, self-regulation, and cognition are all aspects of the executive functioning of the brain that are utilized during handwriting (NASBE 2012). Handwriting also requires fine motor control and visio-motor integration to be successful (Cahill 2009). Proper handwriting instruction is an important precursor to academic performance in reading, math, writing, science, and social studies. Handwriting challenges cognitive, perceptual, motor, and kinesthetic components of learning. It incorporates laterality, bilateral integration, visual motor tracking, motor planning, and fine motor dexterity and skills (Rosenblum, Parus, Eptain, and Weiss 2004). Teachers are primarily responsible for handwriting instruction, generally teaching manuscript in first and second grades, and cursive in third grade (Asher 2006). Through the early 20th century, most elementary school children received daily handwriting instruction for a half hour to an hour. With the advent of typewriters, word processors, and computers, elementary school handwriting instruction has diminished to an average of fifteen minutes per day (NASBE 2012). However, elementary school handwriting instruction is varied and inconsistent throughout the United States. The general findings are that handwriting learning is typically done through practice books with minimal direct instruction (Schwellnus, Cameron, and Carnahan 2012). Unstandardized, teacher developed handwriting instruction focuses on the produced letters the child makes and the content the child is able to express through those letters. Sequence of learning letter formation is typically in alphabetical order to coincide with reading and language readiness rather than developmental readiness for writing (Hatcher, Nuner, and Paulsel 2012). Teachers report being unprepared to teach handwriting because of lack of educational preparation in handwriting instruction (Graham, Harris, Mason, Fink-Chorzempa, Moran, and Sadler 2008). In a study regarding handwriting instruction in elementary schools, students referred to occupational therapy for writing difficulties often “did not have any underlying dysfunction but only needed structured handwriting instruction” (Asher 2006). Occupational therapy addresses handwriting as a holistic coordination of visio-motor and fine motor manual production that includes grip, posture, and visual perception (Robinson & Penman, 2011). Because it incorporates both fine motor and cognitive skills direct standardized teacher instruction is important to ensure the benefits of handwriting skills (NASBE 2012). Direct handwriting instruction has been shown to improve spelling and reading in first grade students with handwriting difficulty (Cahill 2009). Students who received standardized handwriting instruction with consultation of occupational therapists such as Handwriting without Tears (HWT) or Size Matters Handwriting Program (SMHP) outperformed control groups over various skill levels such as handwriting, positioning, fine motor skills, and reading readiness (Donica 2015, and Zylestra and Pfeiffer 2016).
C. Argument #3
Moreover, success in handwriting in the formative years of elementary school improves social well-being, self-esteem, and social functioning as children feel confident in their learned tasks (Robinson and Penman, 2011). Linguistic and orthographic knowledge are important components of handwriting performance. As expectations for children to improve in writing speed increase, processing speed in cognitive and motor functioning also increase (Salameh-Mater, Basel, Weintraub 2016). Students may learn to spell more accurately through the sensory motor processes of handwriting because it improves memory and fluency through practice (Cahill 2009). A study of brain activity during letter recognition and writing found that manually writing activated the neural foundations for reading in preschool children (Richler 2013). Children gain confidence through mastery of new skills and by developing the foundational skills for handwriting through consistent instruction. Through instruction and practice, the writing process becomes automatic, allowing children to focus more on the content of their writing such as language arts, social studies, and science (Asher 2006).
Writing performance in higher learning subjects becomes problematic if a child has not mastered legible handwriting during early elementary years. Academic grades are often affected by the legibility of handwriting (Roberts, Siever and Mair 2010). Comparisons of handwriting assignments on the same content show that assignments with better penmanship received higher marks (Collette, Anson, Halabi, Schlierman, and Suriner 2017). As children move up in elementary grades, scores are more likely to be affected because of illegibility. Children with legibility problems are more likely to receive remedial instruction from their teacher and be referred to occupational therapy for intervention (Marr & Dimeo 2006). Children who receive standardized, repetitive handwriting instruction improve their legibility and also improve their sense of pride and accomplishment. When viewed through the MOHO model, personal causation and effectiveness empowers the children for optimization of performance in handwriting (Moscowitz 2016).
III. Counter Argument
The major arguments for schools to opt out of manual and cursive handwriting instruction are: content of writing for idea formation and testing is more important for academic achievement, handwriting can not be quantified through standardized testing for easy statistical analysis to receive federal funding, and improvements of technology overtake the need for manual handwriting.
Counter Argument #1
Common core standards were established to improve academic achievement of American elementary, intermediate, and high school students through educational reform and standardization (Applebee 2013). These standards prepare America’s youth for college and careers in the ever competitive international marketplace (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 2010). Handwriting is not a component in the world marketplace as languages vary and most communication is through technology. Thus, with the academic standards in place, it is more important to spend time on the common core standards of education instead of handwriting instruction. Teachers must focus on composition work and do not have time for remedial instruction of handwriting (Marr & Dimeo 2006). Manual letter writing is laborious and time consuming, especially if schools continue to teach both manuscript and cursive handwriting during critical developmental periods of childhood learning (Herrick 1961). Rather than focusing on handwriting, students can focus on the composition of their writing, providing a more logical thought process, proper grammar, and sentence structure which is essential in the language arts learning process (Supon 2009). In addition, when removing the handwriting component of learning, children can use their active listening skills and engage in conversations about social issues, scientific discoveries, and real life math problems. In an analysis of common core standards and handwriting instruction in New York state public schools, teachers expressed difficulty finding instructional time for handwriting due to common core instruction requirements in other subjects even if handwriting curricula was available (Collette, Anson, Halabi, Schlierman, and Suriner 2017). At each grade level, children are expected to have a comprehensive range of reading instruction to ensure thorough understanding of various genres of literature. These expectations coupled with those of math, science, and social studies, depending on the grade level, leave little time for specific handwriting instruction within the typical 7 hour school day (Applebee 2013). Therefore, a specific handwriting curricula is unnecessary and a waste of time and money for schools to invest in when there are other aspects of education that take precedence.
Counter Argument #2
Moreover, under NCLB law, schools are accountable for student achievement in specific subjects such as math and reading through the use of standardized testing (Klein 2015). Standardized testing allows educators and policy makers to collect empirical data regarding the effectiveness of a school’s program. Objective decisions can be made regarding money allocation and school policy (Phelps 2008). If students fail to reach annual achievement targets, then the schools may receive sanctions and lose federal funding and must offer supplemental educational services (Klein 2015). The schools need to spend time improving their scores in the academic areas to receive more federal funding than on handwriting. Handwriting is not a tested area for standardized testing because it is considered a supporting skill that children must learn prior to broader content driven academic subjects (Applebee 2013). Standardized handwriting assessments are typically the domain of occupational therapy in the school systems and are not required unless a child exhibits difficulty in handwriting skills (Cahill 2009). It is difficult to categorize statistically because of the different components of handwriting such as grip, instrument size, paper size, and spacing (Asher 2009). During later elementary and intermediate school education, computer generated assignments and testing is more common, diminishing the need for legibility and handwriting (Marr & Dimeo 2006). When assessing student progress, teachers improve efficiency in scoring and grading content through typed or computerized tests. Typed tests also reduce the student anxiety over legibility in handwriting (Supon 2009). Thus, computer generated standardized tests are preferable in assessing content and knowledge base of children. Since handwriting is not a skill necessary for academic achievement on the standardized tests, it is unnecessary to include specific curricula on the subject.
Counter Argument #3
As technology advances, children are using computers and need instruction in typing instead of handwriting. Use of technology in early elementary school takes precedence in educational standards because student and adult communication is increasingly through computer or other technology (Heitin 2016). Instruction in keyboarding and technology usage would be a better use of school time and resources. Through technology, teachers are able to incorporate various programs that facilitate learning such as problem solving, discussions and practice and review important for student achievement (Bitner and Bitner 2002). Keyboarding incorporates many of the components of handwriting such as spatial relations, hand positioning, and bilateral fine-motor coordination. Written work through keyboarding is more efficient, neater, legible and more accurate than a handwritten page. Productivity of written work through a computer may increase because children are more apt to re-evaluate computer produced written work, thus improving their self-esteem and attitudes towards writing (Preminger, Weiss, and Weintraub 2004). The motor processes involved in typing are easier than in handwriting. The ease of typing or touching through technology may accelerate writing ability in young children who may not have the fine motor or sensory-motor skills to manually write (Keifer, Schuler, Mayer, Trumpp, Hille, and Sachse 2015). It is also an important aspect of assistive technology for children unable to produce manual handwritten work (Cahill 2009). The use of technology stimulates an active learning environment that students need for the future job market (Bitner and Bitner 2002). Many schools now offer computers to their students on a 1:1 ratio, so that students have more access to technology and can communicate effectively with teachers via internet, applications, and computer programs. Handwriting usage is becoming obsolete and therefore, children need to become technology savvy to be competitive in the world market.
IV. Resolution
Handwriting skills are an important aspect of occupational performance of elementary school children. They incorporate many aspects of cognitive and motor skills accomplished through the normal developmental sequence. Arguments for standardized instruction of handwriting through consultation with occupational therapists incorporated into the school curriculum emphasize the importance of developmental appropriateness of learning. Fine motor grip, posture, crossing midline, laterality, and bilateral integration are all incorporated at a developmentally appropriate pace for young children to learn handwriting when taught through standardized occupational based methods rather than individual, independent handwriting learning. Continuing education for teachers on the importance of occupation based handwriting instruction is recommended for students to reap the benefits of standardized handwriting instruction. Moreover, through the use of consistent handwriting instruction, students will improve proficiency and pride in their written work, thus laying the foundation for successful academic performance throughout their school career.
In contrast, the counter arguments for the decreased handwriting instruction maintain that the written content is more important than the actual process of writing. Teachers focus school instructional time on standards for academic achievement in core subjects such as math and reading to score well on standardized achievement tests and improve federal funding. Counter arguments stress the importance of technology use and its predominance in education and society as a method of learning, thus reducing the importance and need for handwriting in the schools. Nevertheless, these counter arguments neglect the “whole” child and the importance of handwriting as a foundational skill for learning. It diminishes the importance of the cognitive, visio-spatial, and motoric components of manual handwriting. Although academic standards are important, by diminishing the importance of handwriting instruction, it is the children who lose out in key developmental processes that would improve academic performance across many domains.
V. Conclusion
It is essential for schools to incorporate formal manual handwriting programs to ensure consistency in teaching handwriting so that true fine motor issues and other occupational performance issues can be addressed appropriately by the occupational therapist (Asher 2006). Through consultation with occupational therapy practitioners, schools can choose a curriculum that is most appropriate for their student population and will improve their occupational performance as a whole. Incorporating a manual handwriting curriculum within early elementary education recognizes that handwriting skills are essential for fine motor, visual processing, and cognitive development that will improve academic performance in later years and across disciplines (Marr and Dimeo 2006). A bottom-up, multi-sensory, blocked practice approach to handwriting instruction allows children to develop the skills and fluency necessary for writing to become a successful automatic process (Robinson and Penman 2011). Once children master the foundational skill of handwriting, they will be able to focus and apply their skills on the content driven work of academic achievement such as science, social studies, and math. Self-esteem and personal empowerment will improve as children feel more proficient in their academic skills.
References
- Applebee, A., (2013). Common core state standards: the promise and the peril in a national palimpsest. English Journal. 103(1), 25-33.
- Asher, A. (2006). Handwriting instruction in elementary schools. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 60, 461-471.
- Asher, A., Estes, J. (2016). Handwriting instruction in elementary schools revisited. [abstract]. Journal of Occupational Therapy: Schools & Intervention. 9(4), 353-365.
- Bitner, N, and Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10(1), 95-100.
- Cahill, S. (2009). Where does handwriting fit in? Intervention in School and Clinic. 44(4), 223-228
- Collette, D., Anson, K., Halabi, N. Schlierman, A., and Suriner, A. (2017). Handwriting and common core standards: teacher, occupational therapist, and administrator perceptions from New York public schools. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 71, 7106220010. https:doi//doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.021808.
- Donica, D. (2015). Handwriting without tears: general education effectiveness through a consultative approach. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 69, 6906180050. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.018366.
- Graham, S., Harris, K., Mason, L., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Moran, S., and Sadler, B. (2008). How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey. [abstract]. Reading and Writing. 21(1-2), 49-69.
- Hatcher, B., Nuner, J., and Paulsel, J. (2012). Kindergarten readiness and preschools: teachers’ and parents’ beliefs within and across programs. Early Childhood Research and Practice. 14(2).
- Heitin, L. (2016). Why don’t the common-core standards include cursive handwriting. Education Week. October 17, 2016.
- Herrick, H. (1961). Manuscript and cursive writing. Childhood Education. 37(6).
- Keifer, M., Schuler, S., Mayer, C., Trumpp, N., Hille, K., and Sachse, S. (2015). Handwriting or typewriting? The influence of pen-or keyboard-based writing training on reading and writing performance in preschool children. Advances in Cognitive Psychology. 11(4), 136-155.
- Klein, A. (2015). No child left behind: an overview. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-summary.html
- Marr, D., and Dimeo, S., (2006). Outcomes associated with a summer handwriting course for elementary students. American Journal of occupational therapy. 60(2). 10-15.
- Moscowitz, B. (2016). Handwriting Club. Retrieved from http://www.realotsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/handwriting-club1.pdf on November 12, 2017.
- National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington D.C. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/
- Phelps, R., (2008). The role and importance of standardized testing in the world of teaching and training. 15th Congress of the World Association for Educational Research. Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh, Morocco.
- Preminger, F., Weiss, P., and Wintraub, N. (2004). Predicting occupational performance: handwriting versus keyboarding. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 58(2). 193-209.
- Richler, J. (2013). Brighter writer. Psychology Today. 46(2).
- Robinson, R., and Penman, M., (2011). Viewing development through an occupational lens: learning to handwrite. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy. 58(2).
- Rosenblum, S., Parush, S., Epstain, L., Weiss, P., (2004). Product and process evaluation of poor handwriting among children with developmental dysgraphia and ADHD. In H.L. Teulings & A.W.A. Van Gemmert. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Graphonomics Society. USA; Scottsdale Arizona. Pp. 169-173.
- Roberts, G., Siever, J., Mair, J., (2010). Effects of kinesthetic cursive handwriting intervention for grade 4-6 students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 64, 745-755.
- Schwellnus, H., Cameron, D., and Carnahan, H. (2012). Which to choose: manuscript or cursive handwriting? A review of the literature. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools & Early Intervention. 5:248-258.
- Salameh-Mater, A., Basel, N., and Weintraub, N., (2016). The relationship between linguistic skills, visual-motor functions, and handwriting performance at various developmental stages. American Journal of Occupational Therapy., 70.
- Supon, V. (2009). Cursive writing: are its last days approaching. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(4): 357-358.
- Zylstra, S.E., & Pheiffer, B. (2016). Effectiveness of a handwriting intervention with at-risk kindergarteners. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(3).
2017-11-25-1511653621