Comparing Technology-Based and Multisensory Approaches for Handwriting Instruction

• In Event: Poster Session 13
  In Poster Session: PS 13 Topic - Technology, Media & Child Development

Abstract

Learning to write is a fundamental early skill and related to academic skills (Dinehart & Manfra, 2013), and young children spend 30 to 60% of their time in writing and fine motor work at school (Volman et al., 2006). Past research has revealed the positive effects of a multisensory approach to handwriting (Denton et al., 2006). The current project compared multisensory and technology (iPad) approaches to print manuscript in a handwriting camp setting. The relations between handwriting and working memory were also explored in the print group and a separate group who attended a cursive handwriting camp (but no experimental manipulation) and participated in a 3 month follow-up.

19 print manuscript participants (M = 77.93 months, SD = 8.51, 11 males) were randomly assigned to a multisensory condition or an iPad condition at a 3 hour, 5 consecutive day handwriting camp. Participants did a range of activities, such as gross, medium, and fine motor repetition of letters, group handwriting instruction, and one-on-one instruction with an experimenter. During the one-on-one instruction, participants in the sensory condition engaged in sensory based letter learning activities (e.g., building letters with play-doh and pipe cleaners, etc.), and participants in the iPad condition engaged in a variety of commercially available handwriting apps.

17 participants (M = 102.18 months, SD = 8.93, 9 males) attended a cursive handwriting camp for the same duration. All cursive participants took part in the same gross, medium, and fine motor repetition of letters, group handwriting instruction, and one-on-one instruction with an experimenter. A subset (N = 8) of the cursive participants returned for a 3 month follow-up. The goal was to assess short and long term effectiveness of the camp and explore the relation between handwriting scores and working memory.

For both print and cursive groups, handwriting writing assessed using the Test of Handwriting Skills (THS) at the beginning and the end of the camp. Working memory was assessed using a backward digit span task. The THS was also administered for the cursive group at the follow-up.

To explore the sensory-technology manipulation in the print group, a Condition x Pretest-Posttest mixed model ANOVA was conducted on the 20-second THS scores and revealed a marginal interaction, F(1, 16) = 3.87, p = .067, ηp2 = .195. Participants in the sensory condition showed a significant increase in handwriting test scores between the pretest (M = 3.60, SD = 2.50) and posttest (M = 5.90, SD = 3.03), but not in the iPad condition (pretest M = 4.75, SD = 4.49; posttest M = 3.88, SD = 2.42).

Analyses on the cursive group showed both short term improvement (pretest versus posttest), t(15) = 5.16, p < .001, and long term improvement in THS scores, F(2, 6) = 4.88, p = .055, ηp2 = .619.
Overall, there was a significant relation between digit span and THS scores, r(34) = .54, p =.001.

In conclusion, results show support for sensory approaches to print manuscript and the long-term effectiveness of the cursive curriculum.

Authors

• Kathleen Noel Kannass, Concordia University Wisconsin
  Presenting Author

• Meghan Watry-Christian, Concordia University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Olga S Nestor, Concordia University Wisconsin
  Non-Presenting Author