The Impact of Poor
Handwriting on Written
Composition at 11 and 16
Angela Webb
Handwriting Matters Conference Wales
Cardiff University 9th May 2014
Background
• Teachers often report that children with handwriting
difficulties produce weaker stories than their peers.
• A strong correlation has been found between handwriting
fluency and general written composition quality (Christensen,
2005; Connelly, 2011; Webb, 2005).
• This has been interpreted through a theory of ‘Limited
Cognitive Capacity’ (Dellerman et al, 1996; McCutchen, 2000).
• Improving handwriting fluency has been shown to have
beneficial effects upon text generation and composition
quality (Berninger et al, 1997, 2002; Graham et al, 2000;
Christensen, 2005).
The Simple View of Writing
Translation
Words, sentences,
paragraphs.
Working
memory
Transcription
Handwriting, keyboarding,
Spelling.
Executive functions
Planning, review
Adapted from Berninger & Amtmann (2003)
“Capacity theory”
• Working memory is both limited and vulnerable to
disruption.
• The many sub-processes of writing compete for
cognitive resources.
• Transcription processes which are not automatic
impose high resource costs and may divert vital
cognitive resources away from other writing
processes (Berninger & Swanson, 1994; Bourdin et
al, 1996; Olive & Kellogg, 2002).
• Typically, the demands of handwriting decrease
with age as writers become more fluent (Fayol,
2009).
• Handwriting should be near automatic by 11 years.
• For children with learning difficulties the demands
of transcription may persist for longer
(Graham,1990).
• The aims of handwriting intervention, therefore,
should be to reduce the load it places on limited
resources (Torrance & Galbraith, 2006).
Longitudinal studies of
handwriting
• Handwriting difficulties have been found to persist
for at least two years in the primary school (HamstraBletz and Blote, 1993; Harvey and Henderson, 1997;
Smits-Engelsmann and Van Galen,1997).
• No studies have been found showing whether they
continue into adolescence.
• Also, there are none that show whether the
relationship with written composition quality
persists, and what form it takes.
Aims
To find out whether:
1. the handwriting and written composition
difficulties identified at the top of the primary
school persist into adolescence.
2. the nature of the relationship between the
physical act of putting pen to paper and the
compositional quality of what is produced
changes over time.
Method at T1
Participants
• 12 children with teacher-referred handwriting
difficulties (6 girls, 6 boys)
• Years 5 and 6 in mainstream primary schools
• Age (mean = 10.6; SD = 0.5)
• 12 age, ability and gender matched controls
• N = 24
Standardised measures
• Verbal IQ: WISC III-R (short form) (Wechsler,
1994)
• Word reading and spelling: BAS II (Elliott, 1996),
• Reading comprehension: NARA II (Neale, 1997),
• Motor ability: Movement ABC (Henderson &
Sugden, 1992); Movement ABC-2 (Barnett,
Henderson & Sugden, 2007).
Summary of results
Verbal IQ
All 12 target children were at least of average ability: 8 scored in the
superior range; 4 in the average/high average range.
Literacy
11/12 children scored within the normal range or above on word
reading, spelling and reading comprehension; one scored 2 SDs below
the mean on all 3 measures.
Motor ability
All 12 target children showed some motor impairment on the MABC:
10 < 5% percentile; 2 = 5 - 15%.
Narrative task
Children were instructed to compose a narrative to a
picture stimulus in two modes: handwritten and
oral. Time limit = 30 minutes.
Scripts were transcribed into typed form then assessed
for:
• text length (number of words)
• production speed (words-per-minute)
• handwriting quality (where relevant, independently
rated)
• composition quality (independently rated)
Example 1 (Rated 1 point)
“One day there was an egg and it hatched out then it
went to see the people and the people got scared but
two people saw him but it didn’t see them then he did
and they played football and then some people caught
them. the end.”
Example 2 (Rated 5 points)
“Up, high in the mountains of a small town, something no one has ever seen before
is about to be born. For, settled in a crack in the mountain, is a golden egg.
CRACK!
The egg begins to crack.
CLICK! The pieces of eggshell have fallen out of place and a dragon is born.
The dragon wondered, “Where are my parents?’ He waited patiently for a hundred
years, then decided to leave the mountain. Down he went, past a desert and
through a river and there lay a town. The dragon had travelled far and now was
searching for food. The dragon ate two people straightaway. He liked them and
decided that this was his favourite dish. The townspeople were terrified. They didn’t
know what to do. But then a smart boy had an idea. He got some scarecrows from
his farm, took out the hay and replaced it with stones.
“Hey, dragon!” shouted the boy, “Try this.” The boy threw the scarecrows at the
dragon and ran.
“Yum”, said the dragon, “more people to eat.” The dragon gobbled up the
scarecrows and then had terrible bellyache.
“Yuck”, said the dragon, “people are not my favourite dish after all” and he left the
town snorting.”
Data analysis
Scripts were rated blind to gender, group and
mode of production, using a holistical measure
for handwriting quality and composition
quality.
A 6-point Likert scale (1 = poorest; 6 = best)
Raters were independent educational
psychologists.
Statistical analysis
• A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on
parametric data with one between-subjects factor
(group) with two levels (target and control) and one
within-subject factor (mode) with two levels mode
(written and oral).
• On non-parametric data independent t-tests were
conducted.
Summary of results for
handwritten narratives at T1
T1
Target group
Mean (SD)
Controls
Mean (SD)
p value
Number of words
127.00 (88.74)
150.00 (77.07)
ns
HW speed
12.00 (3.37)
11.00 (4.71)
ns
HW quality (rated)
2.75 (1.22)
4.08 (1.31)
.03*
Composition quality
(rated)
2.58 (1.51)
3.5 (1.16)
.05*
* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Number of words produced in written
and oral mode by target and controls
No significant main effect of group (F (1,22) = 0.13, ns) or mode (F (1,22) = 0.13, p
= .719 ns) but the group x mode interaction was significant (F (1,22) = 13.23, p =
.001).
Composition quality in written and
oral mode for target and controls
Results of the Mann-Whitney U test showed a significant difference between groups
for the handwritten scripts (U = 36.5, p = < .05) but not for oral scripts (U = 57.5, ns).
The difference between modes was significant for the target group (Z = -2.12, p < .002)
but not for the controls (Z = -.95, ns).
Analytic ratings for composition
quality
Scripts were then rated blind on 5 measures of
composition quality from WOLD (Rust 1996):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Generation and development of ideas
Organisation, cohesion and unity
Vocabulary
Sentence structure
Grammar and usage
Analytic data on written
composition quality
Target group
Mean (SD)
Controls
Mean (SD)
P value
Generation and development of
ideas
1.83 (.83)
2.50 (.67)
.005**
Organisation, cohesion and unity
2.67 (.89)
2.83 (.72)
ns
Vocabulary
2.08 (1.08)
2.42 (.67)
ns
Sentence structure
2.42 (1.08)
2.50 9.67)
ns
Grammar and usage
2.75 (1.14)
2.92 (.51)
ns
** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Analytic data on written and oral
composition quality for target group
Written
Mean (SD)
Oral
Mean (SD)
P value
Generation and development of
ideas
1.83 (.83)
2.25 (.75)
.03*
Organisation, cohesion and unity
2.67 (.89)
2.58 (.90)
ns
Vocabulary
2.08 (1.08)
2.17 (.83)
ns
Sentence structure
2.42 (1.08)
2.42 (.79)
ns
Grammar and usage
2.75 (1.14)
2.75 (.51)
ns
** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlational data for
handwritten narratives at T1
Number of words
HW speed
Number of HW speed
words
HW
quality
Composition
quality
1.00
.38
.63**
.91**
1.00
.25
.48*
1.00
.72**
HW quality
Composition quality
* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1.00
General summary at T1
• Target group wrote significantly less less than the
controls and less than they spoke.
• HW speed difference between groups was not significant
(though there was a high degree of variability within the
target group).
• HW quality was poorer in the target group than controls.
• Composition quality was also poorer than controls and as
weaker in written than in oral, but only in the generation
and development of ideas.
• Strong correlations were found between the amount of
text produced, HW quality and handwritten composition
quality.
T2
(5 years later)
Method
•
•
•
•
•
Same 12 target children (6 girls, 6 boys)
Years 10 and 11 in mainstream secondary schools
Age (mean = 15.5; SD = 0.5)
Same age, ability and gender matched controls
N = 24
Interventions:
number of children receiving help
(data from parental questionnaire)
Physio/occup
ational
therapy
Visual
perceptual
therapy
Handwriting
tuition
Touchtyping
Spelling
tuition
Girls
1
6
6
2
2
Boys
3
6
6
4
1
Total
4
12
12
6
3
Standardised measures at T2
• Verbal IQ: WISC III-R (short form) (Wechsler, 1994)
• Word reading, reading comprehension and spelling:
BAS II (Elliott, 1996),
• Motor ability: Movement ABC-2 (Henderson, Sugden
& Barnett, 2007)
• Handwriting speed: DASH (Barnett et al, 2007)
Standard scores for target group and
controls at T1 and T2
140
120
*
100
80
Target group
Control group
60
40
20
0
VIQ
* Significant to .05
Reading
Reading comprehension
Spelling
Percentile scores
for MABC-2 and DASH at T2
80
70
60
50
Target group
**
40
Control group
30
20
**
10
0
MABC-2
** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
DASH
Narrative task:
handwritten and oral modes
“My Ideal Home” – WOLD (Rust, 1996)
“Imagine you could could have someone to design a
place for you to live and create it to your exact wishes.
Write a letter to that person describing how you want it
to look. Include all the details that person would need
to know.”
Time limit 15 minutes.
Narrative samples
• Example 1 (Rated 1 point)
“My house will be a penthouse flat in docklands
with four bedrooms and modern fittings.”
• Example 2 (Rated 2 points)
“ I would like the house to have 5 floors, 2
bathrooms, 2 living rooms, 2 kitchens, 2
bedrooms, 1 spare room, 2 lofts, 2 swimming
pools, one indoor and one outdoor, a pond that
goes round the whole house, a built-in barbeque,
a green house, a fountain, tables and chairs and a
waterfall.”
Example 3 (Rated 6 points)
“… I want an art studio, big and gleaming white – pristine and full of
light. I want gardens, too, one at the front of the house and one at
the back, which are large and green with a wooden porch and small
marble rabbits running through wild shrubs. I want an artificial lake
with a pontoon guesthouse barge in the centre, lily pads afloat and
any other sort of water plants you can find. The water must be
crystal clear and I only want the most exotic of fish, pearly-eyed
with long, ornate fins. I want a beautiful bridge, wooden with some
sort of majestic balance, almost as if it were floating in mid-air. I
would also like a garden on the roof with a pond and small, sleek,
quaint benches with Moroccan stools and beanbags. I want a very
African theme for the décor of my house. Lanterns will hang from
every ceiling. I am very particular about lighting – I like romantic
shades of pink, and fiery gold. Dark is something that won’t exist in
my house! ...”
Data analysis
Scripts were again transcribed into typed form then
assessed blind by independent raters for:
•
•
•
•
text length (number of words)
production speed (wpm)
handwriting quality (where relevant)
composition quality (holistic and analytic)
Summary of results for handwritten
narratives at T1 and T2
T1 and T2
Target group
Mean
(SD)
T1
T2
Controls
Mean
(SD)
T1
T2
T1
T2
Number of words
127.00 258.00
(88.74) (142.00)
150.00 306.60 ns
(77.07) (84.60)
ns
HW speed
12.00
(3.37)
24.10
(5.40)
11.00
(4.71)
20.5
(5.60)
ns
ns
HW quality (rated)
2.75
(1.22)
3.00
(1.50)
4.08
(1.31)
4
(0.6)
.05*
.05*
Composition quality
(rated)
2.58
(1.51)
4.1
(0.12)
3.5
(1.16)
4.70
(1.00)
.05*
ns
* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
p value
Number of words written
for target and controls at T1 and T2
No significant main effects of group (F (1,23) = 0.70, ns) or of mode (F (1,23) = 0.0, ns)
but there was a significant main effect of gender (F (1,23) = 10.2, p < .01) and of time
(F (1,23) = 58.83, p < .001). A time x group interaction (F (1,23) = 4.88, p < .05): the
controls increased more than the target group.
Rated composition quality in both modes
for target and controls at T1 and T2
The difference between the target and controls at T2
was not significant in either written (U = 43.00, ns) or
oral composition quality (U = 62.00, ns).
Correlational data for handwritten
narratives at T1 and T2
Number of words
HW speed
No. words
HW speed
T1
T1
1.00
T2
1.00 .38
1.00
HW quality
Composition quality
* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
T2
HW
Composition
quality
Quality
T1
T2 T1
T2
.63**
.91** .78**
.25
.38
.42*
.57**
1.00
1.00
.72**
.48*
1.00
1.00
Analytic data on written composition
quality at T1 and T2
Target group
Mean
(SD)
T1
T2
Controls
Mean
(SD)
T1
T2
P value
Generation and development of
ideas
1.83
(.83)
3.00
(.74)
2.50
(.67)
3.00
(.72)
.005** ns
Organisation, cohesion and unity
2.67
(.89)
2.92
(.79)
2.75
(.62)
2.83
(.72)
ns
Vocabulary
2.42
(.51)
2.25
(.45)
2.67
(.65)
2.83
(.58)
ns
.02*
Sentence structure
2.83
(.72)
3.00
(.60)
3.00
(.60)
3.17
(.58)
ns
Grammar and usage
3.25
(.75)
3.00
(.60)
3.83
(.39)
3.58
(.51)
ns
.03*
* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
T1
T2
ns
ns
How to interpret these findings?
Need to look within the group results for a
possible gender effect.
Differences on all measures between
girls and boys at T2
F or U
P value
Number of words written
15.11
.001**
Handwriting speed
15.99
.001**
Handwriting quality
32.00
.016*
Composition quality
27.00
.005**
Parametric data
Non-parametric data
* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Summary of differences between
girls and boys at T2
• Girls wrote more than boys, they wrote faster, more
neatly and produced narratives of higher quality.
• The between-group difference in the generation and
development of ideas, noted at T1, had disappeared
for the target girls at T2.
• The between-group difference was still found in the
target boys in the generation and development of
ideas (Z = -2.24, p < .05) and also in grammar (Z = 2.27, p < .05).
Overall summary
1. Handwriting quality appeared to have become
established by the end of the primary school.
2. Handwriting speed increased in all children with
age.
3. Overall, the groups did not differ from each other
in number of words written and written
composition quality during adolescence, but
gender was a defining factor.
4. The target boys at T1 produced stories which
were shorter and of poorer quality than the
target girls and this remained so at T2.
Discussion
• The relationship between handwriting measures and
composition quality does persist into adolescence.
• Young people whose handwriting had improved had
also improved in composition quality.
• Those whose handwriting had not improved still
produced narratives of poorer composition quality than
controls.
• Girls in both groups performed better than boys at T2.
Issues for the future
• How can the difference in response to intervention
between girls and boys be explained?
• Sample sizes were small. Need for bigger groups for
gender comparison.
• Severity and persistence of certain measures, e.g.
manual dexterity may be a factor.
• Intervention regimes were not controlled.
• Literature suggests effective intervention needs to be
both intensive and prolonged (Christensen, 2005).
• Interventions need to reflect ‘cognitive capacity’
theory.
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to:
• the 24 young people who agreed to be re-assessed for the
study and to their families for accommodating us,
• Prof. Morag Stuart and Prof. Sheila Henderson The Institute of
Education, London University.
www.nha-handwriting.org.uk
Effect of spelling
• Since spelling was found to be poorer in the target
group than the controls at T2 a further MANCOVA
was conducted on the T2 data alone with this
measure as a co-varying factor. Results showed that
when spelling was taken into account, the results
were similar to those above: i.e. there was no
significant group difference (F (1,23) = .10, ns),
though the gender difference was still significant (F
(1,23) = 7.83, p < .05).
Narrative task: handwritten
and oral modes
“My Ideal Home” – WOLD (Rust, 1996)
“Imagine you could could have someone to design a
place for you to live and create it to your exact wishes.
Write a letter to that person describing how you want it
to look. Include all the details that person would need
to know.”
Time limit 15 minutes.