View Single Post
  #3  
Old 2011-09-26, 01:00 AM
ccandler ccandler is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 2011 Mar
Location: Texas Woman's University Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1
Default Response

Kate Gladstone brings an interesting perspective to the work Jan McCleskey and I conducted concerning the One Hour to Legibility Program. I agree that often handwriting programs are assessed without focused diligence to the features within them. Testing the hypothesis that 'lakes' as natural adaptations to speed writing may actually improve legibility could provide interesting results. Our study results concur with Graham et al, 1998, and suggest that individuals, including children, adopt their own style and that this style is resistant to change. Further analysis of our data, not included in the IGS abstract, found that the actual letters scored as illegible were different at posttest, but were once again correlated with beginning performance by follow up. In other words, the children changed their letter formation while in the program but subsequently returned to previous letter formations. What we found meaningful for intervetion in our study results was that the spatial organization taught in the program was retained. Our results suggest that global readability can be improved with attention to relative letter sizing and alignment and that letter formation, at least for this group of writers who were selected based on having knowledge of letter formation (mean number legible letters at pretest 22/26), may not have a large impact. I agree with Ms. Gladstone that discovering exactly what parts of intervention produce the most effect is an important task. Understanding the impact of speed errors in different populations of writers would be one such question that could be explored, perhaps in the adult population.
Catherine Candler
Reply With Quote