The Non-Correlation of Printing and Writing Skills

Armitage, Doreen; Ratzlaff, Harold C.

doi:10.1080/00220671.1985.10885595

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be because grading of letter recognition is much more objective and has fewer unambiguous standards for teachers to apply in assigning grades, compared to grading of handwriting which can be more subjective. This confirms the findings of previous studies (Armitage & Ratzlaff, 1985;Graham et al, 2008) that teachers' assessment of handwriting may be rather subjective. More research is needed to establish effective handwriting assessment devices for teachers and training for teachers to use them.…”

Section: Legibility Measuressupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Some researchers have raised concerns about how teachers evaluate their students' handwriting. Armitage and Ratzlaff (1985), for example, stated that teachers tend to rate their students' handwriting subjectively rather than using an objective, reliable measuring instrument. According to Graham et al (2008), most of the teachers in their survey graded penmanship using informal observations and checklists.…”

Section: Role Of Teachers In Handwriting Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In-depth analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quality of handwriting curriculum and instructional practices in actual classrooms was investigated in an in-depth case study of four inner city kindergarten classrooms using quantitative and qualitative methods. The handwriting proficiency of students was also evaluated to assess the impact of the instructional practices observed. The findings suggest that even though teachers employ a number of effective strategies, there is room for improvement in implementing effective, research-approved handwriting instruction. In particular, daily, explicit instruction, writing for fluency, writing from memory, and use of selfevaluation are areas that need improvement. Results indicate that the lack of emphasis on these practices impacted the quality of teaching and learning of handwriting skills. Future research is needed on the impact of teacher training, use of an assessment tool that objectively assesses students' handwriting, use of reading and handwriting curriculum that complement and reinforce one another, and the effectiveness of research-based strategies in practice.

show abstract

Section: Legibility Measuressupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Role Of Teachers In Handwriting Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-depth analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various features of handwriting appearance have been described in the literature, including beauty (Thorndike, 1910), neatness or tidiness (Armitage & Ratzlaff, 1985;Sappington & Money, 2003) and accuracy according to a standard (Stefansson & Karlsdottir, 2003). Handwriting appearance may also be related to legibility.…”

Section: Handwriting Assessments: Appearancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study used a 3-point Likert scale (good, fair and poor) to rate characteristics of the writing of 137 third-grade students, including neatness (Armitage & Ratzlaff, 1985). A third study used a self-rated 100 point visual analogue scale, with end points 0 ("not at all neat" or "easy to read") and 100 ("extremely neat" or "easy to read") (Baxter, 2004).…”

Section: Handwriting Assessments: Appearancementioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of a home-based program to improve handwriting after stroke: a pilot study

Simpson

McCluskey

Lannin

et al. 2015

Disability and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

facilities, health-related websites and in a seniors' newspaper. Eligibility criteria included having sustained a stroke at least three months previously, having self-reported difficulties with, and goals related to, handwriting, being able to hold a pen, and having sufficient cognitive and communication skills to complete a daily home program.A four-week, home-based handwriting training program was delivered by an occupational therapist. The intervention applied principles of task-specific motor training, involving intensive practice of meaningful handwriting tasks related to participant goals. Whole handwriting tasks were practised, as well as problematic handwriting task components. An occupational therapist provided supervised practice and coaching, giving feedback on task performance and using shaping to achieve the right level of challenge. Two 1-hour therapy sessions were provided per week. Another three hours per week of independent, unsupervised practice was prescribed to increase practice intensity. Participants were taught cognitive strategies to analyse their handwriting performance and problem-solve ways to improve specific handwriting features.Handwriting performance was measured at baseline, after the training program (at four weeks) and four weeks later. The primary outcome measure was the modified Evaluation Tool of Children's Handwriting-Words (mETCH-W), a subtest of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB). Secondary outcome measures included other subtests of the HAB, the modified Four Point Scale, and the modified Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Scale. Legibility was scored by a blinded rater.Feasibility of recruitment, intervention and outcome measures was evaluated using descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations and proportions. Utility of the outcome measures was also evaluated by comparing participant score at baseline, postintervention and follow-up. Mean or median change scores were then calculated between these three time points and reported with a 95% confidence interval or interquartile range.Results: Seven adults with stroke were recruited over 18 months (eligibility fraction 43% of those screened, and enrolment fraction 78% of those eligible). There were no dropouts. Mean time post stroke was 2.6 years (range: 3 months to 7 years). Mean age was 71 years (range: 50 to 87 years). Mean disability measured using the Modified Rankin Scale was 2.3 (range 1 to 4). Although recruitment was slow, the intervention was feasible. Participants completed a mean of 7.9 hours of occupational therapy supervised handwriting practice (range: 7.6 to 8.3 hours) and 10 hours of independent practice (range: 6 to 14 hours). Participants were able to

show abstract

“…Several studies involving both manuscript and cursive writing, however, were published during the 1980-1994 period. Armitage and Ratzlaff (1985) examined if chiidren's printing skills predicted their subsequent skills in cursive writing. At the start of the school year, just prior to cursive instruction, manuscript writing samples were collected from 137 children in third grade in Canada.…”

Section: Letter Formsmentioning

confidence: 99%