You know those kids in kindergarten who cannot sit still long enough to do their practice at letter formation?

Some of them seem to ‘switch on’ and absorb the ‘model’ sequence when they do it, twenty times larger. Even though the action is gross motor rather than fine-motor scale, it seems to help some kids remember. (We might call them kinaesthetic learners.)

A teacher can create a practice page using Foundation fonts on her computer, and project it onto the whiteboard. Because it is simply a typed document saved on computer, the text can be changed on no notice, even while a lesson is in progress. The child can trace it, and the child’s lines are a separate layer which can be recoloured in the child’s favourite colour.

KNG4L described doing this with a SmartBoard in 2004.

The hand-drawn layer can be hidden and revealed, so it is easy to have a few kids do this in quick succession. Hand-drawn layers can then be saved and reviewed later, overlaid on another attempt, and played back as an animation in discussion.

Hey, kid, great job! I’ll press Replay: look at what you just did! Let’s show Mum when she comes in – and, hey, can I post it on the class homepage? Now I’ll print the screen and you can do some practice on paper.

What is this doing to teaching and learning?

1. Equipping parents to encourage kids. We can provide more visual and concrete materials for parents to use in understanding and supporting this learning. Parents who wish to help their child practice can see animations of the letter formation, which some will find easier to follow than traditional diagrams.
2. Increasing participation by kinaesthetic learners. When erasing the board is instantaneous, we can afford to give more kids the experience of using it.
3. Fostering peer-endorsement. When erasure and reattempt is quick and cheap, we can afford to use kids to demonstrate to peers, and more frequently set them up to correct and encourage each other.

Some conservative caution about this approach is justified. Does lettering on large scale help letter formation on the scale of normal handwriting? Can we identify which kids will benefit most? Some teachers and occupational therapists are confident (e.g. HWT, Dodge), but some experimental research challenges their beliefs (e.g. Denton, Cope and Moser;  Smith, Higgins, Wall & Miller; Weinraub). Further,  if we can establish the benefit for individual learners, how can we accomodate them fairly in a classroom. Can we in observational studies or interviews substantiate and describe the change in class dynamics? Have parents actually utilised the new material, and what benefits or problems do they perceive?

I look forward to seeing further research.

Reference:

1. Kent National Grid For Learning (KNG4L) 2004, Teaching handwriting skills with the SmartBoard in Year 2, <http://www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/ict/IWB/whiteboards/witt2.html accessed 31/03/2008>.
2. Weinraub, D.L. (1999). The effects of the use of broken crayon upon grasp development in conjunction with occupational therapy. Unpublished master’s thesis. Touro College, Far Rockaway, NY. cited by Handwriting Without Tears 2009 HWT Research Review. <http://www.hwtears.com/files/HWT%20Research%20Review.pdf>
3. Dodge, J. (no date) Handwriting and dysgraphia: the bottom line: how to work on improving these skills. School-OT.com. <http://www.school-ot.com/Handwriting.html>
4. Denton, P.L., Cope, S.  and Moser, C. 2006. The Effects of Sensorimotor-Based Intervention Versus Therapeutic Practice on Improving Handwriting Performance in 6- to 11-Year-Old Children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 60(1):16-27, <http://ajot.aotapress.net/content/60/1/16.abstract> – sensorimotor intervention led to decline in handwriting skill.
5. Smith, H.J.,  Higgins, S., Wall, K.  & Miller, J. 2005. Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21(2):91-101 <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118652048>
6. The Effects of Sensorimotor-Based Intervention Versus Therapeutic Practice on Improving Handwriting Performance in 6- to 11-Year-Old Children
   Peggy L. Denton, Steven Cope and Christine Moser