Jeryl D. Benson EdD OTR/L a, Joyce Salls OTD OTR/L b & Cora Perry MS OTR/L c a Occupational Therapy Department, Duquesne University,

This article was downloaded by: [Duquesne University] On: 23 September 2013, At: 12:18 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjot20 A Pilot Study of Teachers' Perceptions of Two Handwriting Curricula: Handwriting Without Tears and the Peterson Directed Handwriting Method Jeryl D. Benson EdD OTR/L a, Joyce Salls OTD OTR/L b & Cora Perry MS OTR/L c a Occupational Therapy Department, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA b Occupational Therapy Program, Chatham University, Pittsburgh, PA c Occupational Therapist, Charleston, SC Published online: 17 Jan 2012. To cite this article: Jeryl D. Benson EdD OTR/L, Joyce Salls OTD OTR/L & Cora Perry MS OTR/L (2010) A Pilot Study of Teachers' Perceptions of Two Handwriting Curricula: Handwriting Without Tears and the Peterson Directed Handwriting Method, Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 3:4, 319-330, DOI: 10.1080/19411243.2010.541741 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2010.541741 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 3:319 330, 2010 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1941-1243 print / 1941-1251 online DOI: 10.1080/19411243.2010.541741 A Pilot Study of Teachers Perceptions of Two Handwriting Curricula: Handwriting Without Tears and the Peterson Directed Handwriting Method JERYL D. BENSON, EdD, OTR/L, 1 JOYCE SALLS, OTD, OTR/L, 2 AND CORA PERRY, MS, OTR/L 3 1 Occupational Therapy Department, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 2 Occupational Therapy Program, Chatham University, Pittsburgh, PA 3 Occupational Therapist, Charleston, SC The purpose of this study was to explore first grade teachers perceptions of handwriting curricula (the Peterson Directed Method and Handwriting Without Tears) to better understand the collaborative process that can support decision making. A qualitative method was used as quarterly journals from six first grade teachers were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Through this, the following themes emerged: teacher satisfaction, effectiveness, student preference and engagement, and curriculum adaptations. These themes indicate that teachers perceived Handwriting Without Tears to be easy to implement, engaging, and effective without curriculum adaptations, whereas the Peterson Directed Method was effective in promoting student success with curriculum adaptations. Keywords Literature Review Handwriting, school-based practice, qualitative research Handwriting Instruction In the school setting, students are required to demonstrate handwriting skills in a variety of subject areas throughout the school day. It is estimated that 31% to 60% of the school day in the elementary school involves fine motor tasks, including handwriting (McCale & Cermak, 1992). Classroom teachers are typically responsible for implementing handwriting instruction across the curriculum (Ediger, 2002). Instruction and practice are crucial to the development of handwriting skills (Farris, 1991), and instruction can be provided through commercial curricula or through teacher-developed programs (Asher, 2006). In a study investigating the importance of handwriting instruction to teachers, Hammerschidt and Sudsawad (2004) found that 80% of the teachers surveyed from grades one through four stated that handwriting instruction was either important or very important to them. Sixty-two percent of these teachers stated that they would like to spend more time on handwriting than what is currently scheduled. This suggests that although teachers consider handwriting an important aspect of academic performance and school Received 14 January 2010; accepted 15 September 2010. Address correspondence to Jeryl D. Benson, EdD, OTR/L, Occupational Therapy Department, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282. E-mail: benson@duq.edu 319

320 J. D. Benson et al. functioning, there are logistical difficulties with fitting handwriting instruction into the daily routine. Teachers typically introduce handwriting in kindergarten and continue instruction through the third grade (Ediger, 2002; Edwards, 2003; Zwicker, 2005). From kindergarten to first grade, there is an expected improvement in handwriting legibility (Marr & Cermak, 2002). At this time, students become proficient and master the alphabet in upper and lower manuscript letters. Students are also able to begin to put letters and words together to create sentences (Hanft, Marsh, & Cohn, 1993). When students enter second grade, these recently learned skills begin to plateau (Blote & Hamstra-Bletz, 1991; Karlsdottir & Stefansson, 2002; Graham & Weintraub, 1996; Graham, Beninger, & Weintraub, 2001). In third grade, cursive writing is typically introduced and is continued throughout elementary school (Zwicker, 2005). Evaluation of Handwriting It is important to understand how teachers evaluate handwriting performance and their perceptions regarding handwriting legibility. Feder, Majemer, and Synnes (2002) found that only 10% of teachers who responded used standardized assessments or checklists when evaluating handwriting. The quality of handwriting is typically assessed based on the readability or overall legibility and the ability to effectively communicate with others (Ediger, 2002; Hammerschidt & Sudsawad, 2004; Kiss, 2007). Hammerschidt and Sudsawad (2004) found that the most common method used by teachers to evaluate handwriting is comparison of a student s handwriting to other students in the class. Another common form of evaluation is comparing the student s handwriting to models in a book. Teachers typically do not perform specific assessments to evaluate the different handwriting components because they are time-consuming, and teachers are typically more concerned with the overall readability (Sudsawad, Trombly, Henderson, & Tickle-Degnen, 2000). Readability is based on the overall legibility and the specific components, including size, slant, and alignment. The most commonly identified factors related to legibility by teachers include correct letter formation, directionality, and proper spacing (Hammerschidt & Sudsawad, 2004). The biggest problem teachers identified related to legibility are the overall formation of letters and being unable to read the writing (Graham & Miller, 1980; Hammerschidt & Sudsawad). Teachers are typically responsible for identifying problems related to handwriting. Once a problem has been identified, a child may be referred to the school occupational therapist to work on improving handwriting performance (Chu, 1997; Daniel & Froude, 1998; Hammerschidt & Sudsawad, 2004; Marr & Cermak, 2002; Sudsawad et al., 2000). Hammerschidt and Sudsawad found that approximately 18% of teachers surveyed refer their students to occupational therapists for handwriting remediation. The main reasons for the referral include illegible handwriting and frustrations with handwriting. Common approaches used by occupational therapists and teachers to improve handwriting performance include motor learning, perceptual motor, sensory integration, and cognitive behavioral strategies (Feder et al., 2000). Teachers Perceptions Among teachers, there appears to be little consensus on how handwriting should be taught. Factors that contribute to inconsistencies among teachers and classrooms include curriculum choices, instructional methods, materials and resources, educational philosophy, and

Teachers Perceptions 321 teacher experience (Ediger, 2002; Zwicker, 2005; Kiss, 2007; Olsen, 2005). For example, there are a multitude of curricula and various teaching methods and a variety of writing instruments and papers available. The amount of time that is dedicated to direct instruction varies from classroom to classroom and school to school (Ediger; Zwicker). Currently, teachers are no longer typically receiving specific instruction on how to teach handwriting effectively or how to choose an appropriate curriculum (Kiss; Olsen). This highlights the need for an interdisciplinary approach to teach handwriting and strong collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists (Ediger; Chu, 1997). Although there are a plethora of curricula currently available to teachers and occupational therapists, there are few that meet the needs of an interdisciplinary team. According to teacher reports, the curriculum and activities should be easy to implement, should not consume too much time in the day, should be fun and effective, and should meet the needs of the students (Woodward & Swinth, 2002). Teachers believe that instruction should include meaningful learning opportunities and interesting experiences and that the context in which it is taught should be both positive and fun (Ediger, 2002; Orloff, 2004). It is essential to motivate students when teaching or practicing handwriting (Woodward & Swinth). Additionally, teachers report that with handwriting instruction less is more (Orloff) and that the curriculum needs to support student improvement in writing over a short period of time (Woodward & Swinth). Finally, the curriculum should be appropriate for typically developing children and children with special consideration (Kiss, 2007). Teachers believe it is important to choose one single type of writing instruction or curriculum to achieve maximum results (Wallace & Schomer, 1994). Although many classrooms and school districts use specific handwriting curricula, others choose not to take such a formal approach and assume students will learn these skills on their own (Ediger). Asher (2006) completed a study looking at handwriting instruction strategies used by teachers in kindergarten through sixth grade classrooms in a specific district. The study found that teachers taught handwriting in both kindergarten and first grade and moved to cursive handwriting in the third grade. Nine of the 17 teachers surveyed used commercial handwriting programs, including D Nealian, Handwriting Without Tears (HWT), Land of the Letter People, and Zaner Bloser. Five of the 17 teachers reported using informal programs, and the remaining teachers used no formal type of instruction for handwriting. Teachers responses regarding the sequence for introduction of the letters varied greatly and demonstrated little consistency. Examples include introducing letters in a developmental progression, using classroom themes, selecting letters of the week, or introducing new letters as previous letters were mastered (Asher). Instruction and practice time also varied from every day to three times a week to one time a week to no scheduled practice time. There were no clear guidelines and methods established for teachers in relationship to handwriting instruction (Asher). Traditional Handwriting Curricula Versus Multisensory Curricula Traditional curriculums typically use self-instruction, modeling, imitation, guided practice, and self-evaluation (Zwicker, 2005). Zaner-Bloser, D Nealian, and the Peterson Directed Handwriting curriculum are common traditional handwriting curricula implemented in schools (Hammerschidt & Sudsawad, 2004; Wallace & Schomer, 1994; Nelson & Trafford, 2002). A multisensory approach involves a variety of sensory experiences, such as proprioceptive, tactile, visual, auditory, and olfactory inputs (Zwicker, 2005), and is common practice among many occupational therapists when teaching handwriting skills (Feder

322 J. D. Benson et al. et al., 2000). Handwriting curricula frequently used by occupational therapists that utilize a multisensory approach include HWT, Loops and Other Groups, and Callirobics (Zwicker). Peterson Directed Handwriting Curriculum and Handwriting Without Tears The Peterson Directed Handwriting curriculum is designed to use teaching and learning strategies based on motor learning theory with the goal of making handwriting an automatic process. According to Nelson (2006), automaticity leads to fluency in writing that allows students to focus on word processing. This curriculum is primarily used in regular education classrooms but can be adapted for students with special needs. The program curriculum is designed for students in grades kindergarten through 8. The Peterson Directed Handwriting curriculum is described as having ease in implementation and being time-efficient (Nelson, 2006). The classroom teacher is key in the effectiveness of this handwriting curriculum (Nelson & Trafford, 2002). There is no further research that describes teachers perceptions of using this curriculum in the classroom. The Peterson Directed Handwriting curriculum, established in 1972, uses the motor-control theory and the developmental sequence to address the skill of handwriting. Specifically, in first grade, the curriculum uses We Write to Read for instruction (Nelson; Nelson & Trafford). The aim of this curriculum is to develop handwriting that is easy to read, fluent, and automatic (Nelson). The focus is rooted in the actual process of handwriting while still keeping the outcome or product of legible handwriting as an important goal (Nelson; Nelson & Trafford). This is done through direct instruction and directed lessons. There are three ways in which this is accomplished: Develop, Practice, Apply. It is important to develop lessons in an effort to internalize the movement, sequence, and rhythm. Practice is used to improve control and rhythmic movements. Finally, students must apply what they have learned and use rhythmic movements as a tool. Simple words, action words, color rhythms, and counting are used throughout instruction (Nelson). The four steps of instruction include Illustrate and Describe, Airwriting with Action Words, Finger Trace with Action Words, and Write and Say. The sequence begins by introducing the letters and teaching where they begin and end. This is followed by airwriting and finger tracing, which focus on the form of the letter and movement patterns that are used to create the different letters. The sequence ends with writing the letters while chanting how they are written. This works on form, downstrokes/slant, size, spacing, smoothness, and control (Nelson, 2006). The sequence is designed to evoke thoughtful practice rather than rote memorization (Nelson & Trafford, 2002). To date, there are no peer-reviewed studies to support the effectiveness of the Peterson Directed Handwriting method. HWT is a handwriting curriculum developed by an occupational therapist and uses a multisensory method to teach handwriting and to remediate handwriting problems. This program is based on the developmental sequence and developmental principles (Kiss, 2007). It can be used in the regular education classroom, in special education classroom, in therapy, and at home. The program is designed for pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. HWT teaches students proper pencil grip, proper posture, correct letter formation, appropriate sizing and placement, and sentence formation (Olsen, 2007). This is accomplished through teacher modeling, practice, and hands-on learning opportunities. The recommended timeframe for instruction is 10 min per day on instruction followed by 5 min of practice time (Olsen, 2001). The letters are introduced in a developmental order; the more basic letters are introduced prior to the advanced letters with diagonal lines and reversals. This allows children to draw on their prior base of knowledge as the process gets more complex (Olsen). Capital letters are taught first. These are deemed easier as they

Teachers Perceptions 323 are all the same height, begin in the same place, and take up the same amount of vertical space. The capitals are grouped according to their level of difficulty, frequency in use, and beginning stroke. These groupings include Starting Line Letters, Center Starters, The Frog Jump capitals, and The Starting Corner capitals. Lowercase letters are taught in a similar fashion; they are grouped by the type of stroke used to make the letter. These groups include the Magic C letters, Line letters, Diver letters, Slide letters, and the Tricky letters (Olsen, 2007). Kiss (2007) completed a pilot research study looking at the HWT curriculum. Beyond finding a significant difference in the students pre- and posttests, the study also found information about the curriculum according to the teachers who implemented it. These included a prekindergarten teacher, general education first grade teacher, general education fourth grade teacher, life skills teacher, and two resource teachers. These teachers were thrilled with their students progress while using the program and reported the students showed progress quickly. The teachers were also enthusiastic in regard to the ease of the instruction and time needed for implementation. Collaboration was simplified as teachers, special educators, and occupational therapists were using the same method (Kiss). Current Study The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of first grade teachers in regard to handwriting and handwriting curriculums. The literature that currently exists provides little information about which handwriting programs and tools are best and how decisions are made regarding their use. In this study, the following research questions were addressed: (a) What are the teachers perceptions of the effectiveness of HWT on student performance? (b) What are the teachers perceptions of the effectiveness of Peterson Directed program on student performance? (c) What are the teachers perceptions of the ease of implementing the two handwriting programs? Teacher perceptions of handwriting curriculums, specifically a handwriting curriculum that is consistent with occupational therapy practice, is relevant because an interdisciplinary approach to both classroom instruction and intervention is important for developing occupations of children and fostering the relationship within the interdisciplinary team. Using a handwriting curriculum congruent with current occupational therapy practice has the potential to provide teachers with the tools to offer supportive instruction and occupational therapists with the tools to intervene effectively. Methodology Approach/Design This study was conducted within a school district in a suburb of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The district operates seven elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. The research sites were two of the elementary schools, specifically the first grade classrooms. In the school district, 3 of the teachers were using the HWT curriculum at one school, and the other 3 teachers were using the Peterson Directed Method at their school. Prior to the start of the study, all of the teachers had used the Peterson Directed Method for handwriting instruction. A qualitative approach was used to gain an in-depth understanding of teachers perception of teaching handwriting. More specifically, a grounded-theory method was utilized to develop a framework regarding the perceptions of the first grade

324 J. D. Benson et al. teachers while using the handwriting method assigned to their building. Grounded theory uses systematic and analytical methods to collect and analyze data to understand the ways in which reality is socially or psychologically constructed (Richards & Morse, 2007). When using a grounded-theory approach, the investigator attempts to understand and explain from the participants perspective the manner in which people in a specific setting understand, take action, manage, and interact in day-to-day situations (Jette, Grover, & Keck, 2003, p. 226). Participants/Subjects Grounded theory uses theoretical sampling to identify and select a sample that will meet the needs of the study to answer the research questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this study, a convenience sample of 6 first grade teachers from the same district, 3 in the building using the Peterson Directed Handwriting Method and 3 in the building using the HWT curriculum, were identified. This sample provided information regarding the process that teachers undergo while teaching handwriting using various curriculums. First grade teachers were specifically selected, given the fact that current research indicates that first grade is a crucial year for handwriting instruction. Data Collection Throughout the 2007 2008 school year, 6 teachers were asked to complete quarterly journals regarding their perspectives on handwriting instruction and the handwriting curriculum used. The journals specifically asked about the experience of using the handwriting curriculum, thoughts about the instructional methods used within the curriculum, the students level of engagement during instruction, and their general perceptions. Each of the journals was handwritten. Data Analysis Journals were collected from each of the 6 participants. The length of the text varied from participant to participant, although each journal contained information for each of the four quarters. The researchers began the data analysis process by having two of the three researchers independently complete a line-by-line reading of the text of each journal. When reading the journals, the researchers identified the focus or meaning of the teachers experience, which is important in understanding the themes. The data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis to identify common themes and trends within the data. Using this process, there is a continuous interplay among data collection and data analysis. The data were broken down into many different codes that existed throughout the transcripts and the data. The researchers gave a code to each piece of raw data. These codes began as open codes in that they were continuously examined, compared, and categorized. The researchers then created categories for the emerging codes. This process is the initial phase of bringing the data back together and making a fluid connection. In continuing to look at the data, themes began to emerge from these various codes and categories previously identified. At this time, similarities and differences among themes, categories, and codes were examined as well. The research team then reviewed the data, identified the themes, and interpreted the outcomes, providing rich text data as support for the outcomes.

Results Teachers Perceptions 325 Six themes emerged from the data: teacher satisfaction, curriculum materials, instructional methods, effectiveness, student participation and engagement, and curriculum adaptation. Teacher Satisfaction Overall, the teachers from both first grade classrooms stated that they were generally pleased with the handwriting curriculum implemented during the academic year. Throughout the different stages in the year, teachers reported, [T]he method was great, I have had a positive experience, and enjoy[ed] using the curriculum. There was no difference among teachers satisfaction based upon which curriculum was implemented. However, despite the general satisfaction with the two curriculums, the teachers at both schools did identify aspects of dissatisfaction with each, which emerged as themes in curriculum materials and instructional methods. Teachers using the HWT curriculum consistently identified the structure of the writing paper, specifically the lines, as an area of frustration. Teachers using the Peterson Directed Method reported the instructional methods as a weakness, identifying the methods as boring and not fun for the children. Curriculum Materials Teachers consistently commented on their like or dislike for the different materials used in the curriculum. The teachers implementing the HWT curriculum identified the paper used with the program to be biggest problem. Specifically, the teachers found it difficult because the paper used for the program doesn t match the lines we have in our workbooks for math and language arts. Teachers identified this as being confusing to the students at first. As the year progressed, teachers using HWT continued to identify this as a barrier to progress, specifically regarding formation of letters and generalization across subject areas. The lack of consistency among subject areas led to confusion among the students. It is hard for them to learn with two lines but then see three lines in other subject areas. Teachers expressed satisfaction with the workbook and practice opportunities provided by the HWT curriculum. The teachers using the Peterson Directed Method stated that they wish that there was more practice involved and that they wish they [I] had materials/booklets for them [students] to practice with outside of actual handwriting instruction. Due to the lack of materials included for practice in the Peterson Directed Method, one teacher used material to practice created by another teacher. Instructional Methods Teachers using the HWT curriculum were satisfied with the instructional methods and reported that the methods incorporated in the curriculum were great. A teacher reported that there are many instructional methods to make use of the program. Also, the methods of instruction are child-friendly and easy to teach. Teachers identified multiple positive factors about the HWT curriculum, including the lingo, prompts, modeling, and layout of how the letters were taught. In particular, the prompts used were easy to remember, easy to use, easy to understand, effective, and engaging. The teachers implementing the Peterson Directed Method did not show a consistent trend regarding satisfaction with the instructional methods. All of the teachers indicated a

326 J. D. Benson et al. need to supplement instructional methods throughout the year. The supplemental methods reported being used included exercises, animal walks, modeling, and reviewing and practicing. Effectiveness At the beginning of the school year, teachers at both schools stated that the children are doing well, that the students are coming along nicely in handwriting, and that the program seems to be effective. The teachers using the HWT curriculum perceived the program to be effective immediately and maintained effectiveness throughout the school year. However, teachers using the Peterson Directed Method reported that the students do not carry over what they are learning and they do not apply it to other writings, that remembering the different rules to follow to form each letter can be difficult, and that it is very effective as a class...[but does not] carry through in other writings. As the year progressed, the teachers no longer identified these issues as barriers to effectiveness. By the middle of the school year, teachers using the Peterson Directed Method reported, [S]eeing more carry over into daily work and their handwriting is improving. By the end of the school year, generalization and application to other writings were no longer concerns, expressing that it is very effective for this point in first grade. As the year progressed, the teachers were able to identify a positive change in the effectiveness of the curriculum. Student Preference and Engagement Regardless of the handwriting curriculum or the point in the school year, the teachers expressed that their students were highly engaged in handwriting lessons. Both the HWT and the Peterson Directed methods were able to maintain engagement and interest of the students throughout the school year. Teachers reported that students love it, enjoy handwriting time, have a positive attitude toward handwriting time, are enthusiastic, and are constantly engaged. Beyond this, teachers using HWT identified the supplies and methods used in the program as factors that created and maintained students interest and engagement. The teachers using the Peterson Directed Method reported using their own past knowledge to supplement the program and increase student motivation. Curriculum Adaptations The teachers who implemented the Peterson Directed Method throughout the school year reported that they needed to make adaptations to the program to be fully satisfied and increase effectiveness. Immediately, teachers reported that they don t follow the program so to speak and that they have adapted this so much over the year. Throughout the year, teachers using the Peterson Directed Method continued to report that the program alone is not enough for the kids to be successful. Exercises (i.e. chair pushups), exploratory activities (i.e., sand play), large-muscle (i.e., crab walking) activities were reported as specific curriculum adaptations. Additionally, worksheets and materials created by another teacher were used in conjunction with the Peterson Directed Method. Teachers using the HWT curriculum reported that they were able to use the program out of the box and did not feel the need to make modifications. They also reported less preparation time spent on handwriting as they were satisfied with activities and options included in the curriculum.

Teachers Perceptions 327 Discussion The results from this study provide information regarding teachers perceptions of effectiveness and ease of instruction of two handwriting curricula. These findings help to fill a gap in the literature regarding how handwriting should be taught and what curricula should be used (Asher, 2006; Kiss, 2007; Zwicker, 2005). Overall, in this study, teachers implementing HWT and teachers implementing the Peterson Directed Method were both generally pleased with the handwriting programs and results; however, there were aspects of each curriculum that did not fully meet expectations and needs. Overall, the teachers reported a higher level of satisfaction with HWT and implementation of HWT strategies as compared to the Peterson Directed Method. Teachers using the Peterson Directed Method reported that the curriculum did not fully address all of the handwriting needs of their students. As a result, teachers felt it was necessary to make adaptations to the curriculum for them to be fully satisfied with the program and to feel that the program met the needs of the students. According to the teachers implementing the program, adaptations to both instruction methods and materials were necessary. Not fully following a curriculum and implementing many adaptations may lead to a lack of continuity across teachers and grade levels. In previous research, this has shown to contribute to problems with handwriting instruction (Kiss, 2007). Asher (2006) indicates that it is important for students to receive a single type of writing instruction to effectively increase handwriting speed, legibility, and automaticity. The Peterson Directed Method supplemented by personal adaptations led the teachers to perceive that the students were motivated and engaged in handwriting time. However, this report on engagement does not indicate the level of engagement of the students while using the curriculum prior to any alterations. The same is true regarding teacher satisfaction. The teachers were satisfied with implementing the Peterson Directed Method with their personal adaptations. The specific areas of need within the Peterson Directed Method were most notably within the areas of curriculum materials and practice, which is a crucial part of handwriting instruction (Ediger, 2002; Farris, 1991). Teachers created their own activities and materials to provide increased practice opportunities. Also, the instructional methods were adapted by the teachers and occupational therapists to provide more sensorimotor activities, which have been found to effect the quality of motor output and legibility (Zwicker, 2005). Making adaptations to the curriculum methods and materials required additional time and effort on the part of the teachers. Research indicates that teachers need a curriculum that is easy to administer and does not take too much time (Kiss, 2007; Owens, 2004). Kiss (2007) indicates that handwriting instruction should show improvement in legibility and writing over a short period of time. Teachers initially felt that they were not seeing carryover from lesson to lesson or across subject areas, although teachers ultimately reported satisfaction with student outcomes. The findings from this study regarding HWT are consistent with Kiss (2007) and Owens (2004) regarding the ease of implementation and effectiveness. Teachers reported that HWT is easy to implement and shows student progress immediately and that the time designated for handwriting is sufficient. Teachers were satisfied with HWT without any additional adaptations. They did not feel that changes to the program were necessary to meet the needs of students regarding their ability to learn the correct formation of letters or to keep the children engaged in handwriting time. Evidence suggests that the handwriting curriculum used by classrooms teachers should not consume a significant amount of time and should be easy to implement (Kiss; Owens). If teachers spend time remaking

328 J. D. Benson et al. handwriting worksheets or activities, this may decrease the amount of time spent on handwriting instruction. As noted, 62% of teachers reported they would like to be able to spend more time on handwriting (Hammerschidt & Sudsawad, 2004). Also, it is important for children to receive consistent handwriting instruction for optimal effectiveness (Asher, 2006; Wallace & Schomer, 1994). HWT can be implemented from kindergarten through sixth grade with minimal changes, supporting consistency throughout elementary school (Owens, 2004). Current literature indicates that practice time is crucial to handwriting outcomes in elementary school (Asher, 2006; Ediger, 2002; Farris, 1991). In this study, the teachers were satisfied with the practice opportunities provided through HWT. Another important aspect of a handwriting curriculum are the instructional methods. Instructional methods should be fun, motivating, and easy to administer and understand (Orloff, 2004; Woodward & Swinth, 2002). Teachers reported the instructional methods of HWT as easy to teach and easy to understand. Beyond this, they also felt that the students were engaged in these methods and showed improvement in response to the methods immediately. Many of the methods used in HWT are consistent with the recommended methods for teaching handwriting instruction, including multisensory activities, cognitive activities, and motor learning activities (Feder et al., 2000; Zwicker, 2005). Although the teachers implementing HWT were satisfied with the curriculum, they found that the untraditional handwriting paper used with the curriculum was initially confusing to the students. The teachers expressed that the paper used during handwriting time did not match the paper used for other academic subjects. Ediger (2002) explains that handwriting needs to be emphasized and consistent throughout the overall curriculum. The HWT paper is an aspect to consider and further explore. The collaboration between occupational therapists and classroom teachers is essential, especially because teachers do not typically have formal training in how to select a handwriting curriculum and teach handwriting (Chu, 1997; Olsen, 2007). Overall, these findings suggest that collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists may be beneficial for curriculum selection and implementation. Limitations This study has several limitations. First, the school district used as the site for the study was a convenience sample. The district has a relationship with one of the researchers, and the research question developed from the relationship. Second, the participants were all teachers in the same school district, which is located in an upper-middle-class suburban neighborhood. Last, teacher experience with the handwriting curriculum used may have impacted the outcomes. The Peterson Directed Method has been used district-wide for many years; therefore, the teachers were familiar with the program and may have had preconceived likes or dislikes. The HWT curriculum was being used for the second time. Implications for Practice Choosing a handwriting curriculum is a collaborative process among teachers, occupational therapists, and school administration (Hammerschidt & Sudsawad, 2004). This collaboration is essential due to the dynamics of an educational environment and the contribution offered by each profession. Occupational therapists have expertise in handwriting instruction and remediation, whereas classroom teachers typically do not have this background (Kiss, 2007). However, teachers do know what is realistic and beneficial within the

Teachers Perceptions 329 classroom setting as they provide the handwriting instruction on a day-to-day basis (Asher, 2006; Chu, 1997; Hammerschidt & Sudsawad). Overall, this qualitative study found that teachers implementing the HWT curriculum found it easy to administer, effective, engaging, and time-efficient. HWT also contained many features cited in the literature as important aspects of good handwriting instruction. The Peterson Directed Method required adaptations and changes to meet the needs of the students and teachers, although, once these adaptations were made, the teachers reported satisfaction with the curriculum. This indicates that HWT is a curriculum that can be easily implemented without modification, whereas the Peterson Directed Method may require adaptations. Further research is needed to determine the teachers perceptions of commercially available handwriting curriculums and the impact of those perceptions on student outcomes. It is important to determine what teachers perceive as the most effective handwriting curriculum to allow for consistent instruction and therefore an increased opportunity for student success with the occupation of handwriting. References Asher, A. V. (2006). Handwriting instruction in elementary schools. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 461 471. Blote, A., & Hamstra-Bletz, L. (1991). Understanding and assessing handwriting difficulty: Perspectives from the literature. Australian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 39, 7 15. Case-Smith, J. (2002). Effectiveness of school-based occupational therapy intervention on handwriting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 17 25. Chu, S. (1997). Occupational therapy for children with handwriting difficulties: A framework for evaluation and treatment. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 514 52. Daniel, M. E., & Froude, E. H. (1998). Reliability of occupational therapist and teacher evaluations of the handwriting quality of grade 5 and 6 school children. Australian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 48 58. Ediger, M. (2002). Assessing handwriting achievement. Reading Improvement, 39, 103 110. Edwards, L. (2003). Writing instruction in kindergarten: Examining an emerging area of research for children with writing and reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 136 148. Farris, P. J. (1991). Views and other views: Handwriting instruction should not become extinct. Language Arts, 68, 312 314. Feder, K., Majnemer, A., & Synnes, A. (2000). Handwriting: Current trends in occupational therapy practice. The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 197 204. Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Weintraub, N. (2001). Which manuscript letters for primary grade children write legibly? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 488 497. Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 13(2), 1 16. Graham, S., & Weitraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research, Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Education Psychology Review, 8, 7 87. Hammerschmidt, S. L., & Sudsawad, P. (2004). Teachers survey on problems with handwriting: Referral, evaluation, and outcomes. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 185 192. Hanft, B., Marsh, D., & Cohn, D. (1993.) Getting a grip on handwriting. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association. Jette, D. U., Grover, L., & Keck, C. P. (2003). A qualitative study of clinical decision making recommending discharge placement from the acute care setting. Physical Therapy, 83, 224 236. Karlsdottir, R., & Stefansson, T. (2002). Problems in developing functional handwriting. Perception and Motor Skills, 94, 623 662. Kiss, D. M. (2007, August). Handwriting consultation in elementary schools. OT Practice, 12, 11 14. Marr, D., & Cermak, S. (2002). Consistency of handwriting in early elementary students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 161 167.

330 J. D. Benson et al. McHale, K., & Cermak, S. (1992). Fine motor activities in elementary school: Preliminary findings and provisional implications for children with fine motor problems. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 898 903. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nelson, R. H. (2006). The Peterson Method: A research-based strategy for teaching and learning motor skills for written language. Retrieved on February 25, 2008, from http://www.peterson handwriting.com/publication/pdf_versions/petersonstrateg.pdf. Nelson, R. H., & Trafford, C. H. (2002). A statement of scope and sequence for teaching physical language with We Write to Read from Peterson Directed Handwriting. Retrieved on February 25, 2008, from http://www.petersonhandwriting.com/publications/pdf_versions/scope AndSequence.pdf. Olsen, J. (2005, February). Handwriting Without Tears: Bridging the educational gap. OT Practice, 10, 7 8 Olsen, J. (2001). Handwriting Without Tears (8th ed.). Potomac, MD: Author. Olsen, J. (2007). Handwriting Without Tears. Retrieved January 2, 2008, from http://www. hwtears.com Orloff, S. N. S. (2004). Handwriting: Less may be more, The Exceptional Parent, 34(9), 83. Owens, L. L. (2004). The effects of the Handwriting Without Tears program on the handwriting of students in inclusion classrooms. Unpublished master s thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. Richards L., & Morse J. M. (2007). Read me first: A user s guide to qualitative method (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sudsawad, P., Trombly, C. A., Henderson, A., & Tickle-Degnen, L. (2001). The relationship between the Evaluation Tool of Children s Handwriting and teachers perceptions of handwriting legibility. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 518 523. Wallace, R. R., & Schomer, J. H. (1994). Simplifying handwriting instruction for the 21st century. Education, 114, 413 417. Woodward, S., & Swinth, Y. (2002). Multisensory approach to handwriting remediation: Perceptions of school-based occupational therapists. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 305 312. Zwicker, J. G. (2005). Effectiveness of occupational therapy in remediating handwriting difficulties in primary students: Cognitive versus multisensory interventions. Unpublished master s thesis, University of Victoria, Greater Victoria, British Columbia. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:wq0fokm0ffoj:https://dspace.library.uvic. ca:8443/hande/1828/49+occupational+therapy+jill+zwicker