OTS 13: Reviewing the Research: Handwriting
- Jayson Davies
- Sep 2, 2018
- 25 min read
Updated: Jan 26
Press play below to listen to the podcast
Or click on your preferred podcast player link!
Welcome to the show notes for Episode 13 of the OT Schoolhouse Podcast.
Do you run a handwriting group? Do you use a specific program? In this episode, Jayson is diving into the recent literature on handwriting to help you with your decision-making when it comes to supporting your students' handwriting goals.
We'll discuss everything from which programs work in what setting, to who can benefit from handwriting instruction and more. Specifically, we will be looking at 4 articles that support the instruction of handwriting in the classroom through a collaborative approach. Be sure to check out the articles in addition to listening to the article; they are cited below.
Have a listen on Apple Podcasts if you are interested in hearing about recent handwriting research.
Links to Show References:
The first article mentioned:
The second article mentioned:
The third article mentioned:
The final article mentioned:
Be sure to subscribe to the OT Schoolhouse email list & get access to our free downloads of Gray-Space paper and the Occupational Profile for school-based OTs.
Have any questions or comments about the podcast? Email Jayson at Jayson@otschoolhouse.com
Well,
Thanks for visiting the podcast show notes! If you enjoyed this episode be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts
Episode Transcript
Expand to view the full episode transcript.
Amazing Narrator
Hello and welcome to the OT schoolhouse podcast. Your source for the latest school based occupational therapy tips, interviews and research now to get the conversation started, here are your hosts, Jayson and Abby, class is officially in session.
Jayson Davies
Hey everyone, and welcome to September. I hope you all had a fantastic Labor Day weekend, and I hope you're all getting back to school and having a good time at school, meeting the kids, meeting the staff, or just getting back into the flow. I'm at a new school, as I said last episode, I believe. And you know, it's, it's tough because I'm trying to get the printers to work and everything. But you know what? I'm loving it, I'm loving the kids. I'm loving what we're doing there. So welcome everyone to episode number 13 of the OT school house podcast. This episode is very meaningful to myself and Abby. And you know what this is our 13th episode, which means that we've officially been doing this for six months now. And you know what? It's September, school is getting back into session, and we're so happy to be here. August was awesome. We actually had episode six, which was about the difference between the M fun and the bot two assessment that that podcast reached 1000 downloads this past month, and we actually had over 2000 total downloads of the podcast in the month of August, which was just mind blowing. We couldn't be more thankful. So we appreciate everyone for for letting us be a part of your daily lives, or maybe your weekly lives, I guess, and listening to the podcast. Yeah, so six months and a lot longer to go. Hopefully, I hope you guys will keep on listening. So for today, we have a short Well, we'll see how long it goes. But I the last week, I've been looking at handwriting articles. Earlier this year, there the as ot published a handwriting article about common core and what handwriting means in the Common Core, and just how much common core and handwriting go together. And so that that article got me, you know, really interested in handwriting. And then just recently, in June, I believe it was, another article was published about handwriting, and this was actually a systematic review about all the previous studies in the past 10 years about related to handwriting. So I'm excited to kind of do my own little synthesis on about three articles, three or four articles for you to let you know about handwriting and what's been shown to be effective. And that way, when you go to IEPs, or when you're talking to teachers and administrators, you can say, Hey, I know what works. And maybe you can get something started. So you know what? Let's jump into it. This is episode number 13, and we're discussing handwriting, alright? So the first article that I was just referencing, it's titled handwriting and Common Core State Standards, teacher, occupational therapist and administrator perceptions from New York State Public Schools. And this one came out in October, 2017 I might have just said January, a second ago, came out a little earlier than I thought, back in October and Well, this was the data was collected by Deborah Collette, Kylie Anson, Nora Halabi, April, I'm sorry. April Schlierman and Allison Suriner. So these group of researchers, they basically did a little survey, it sounds like, and they talked to teachers, administrators and OTs, and I'm not going to go into detail on this one, but it really sets up what we're going to talk about right now. And that is, I think they confirm what a lot of us, OTs, especially, and probably other special educators, already know, and that's that there's less and less time for handwriting instruction, you know, actually going over formation, sizing, spacing, all that good stuff that so many referrals come in for, ot for, and instead they're focusing on math or focusing on that content of writing, you know. And a lot of kindergarten classes, they're already expecting the kid to come in knowing how to write their name, and, you know, it just doesn't happen. And those kids that aren't quite there, you know, they're not getting the instruction they need, because there's other kids that are already there, and they're kind of focusing on those kids, in my opinion. And so the outcome of this study, like I said, you know, they found that there's less and less time, but you know, there are really advocating, you know, for handwriting to be more more ingrained in Common Core, there is not a single standard in Common Core that says a child should know how to write the letters. It's more of the child will write their name, but it doesn't really take into effect any of that actual how to write, or the very foundations of writing, like I said, those are kind of just expected among kids now. So that kind of lays down our foundation for the next three articles that I really want to get into. And for those we're going to actually use the. The article analysis that we went over in episode number 11, I believe it was with Dr Amy Sadek. And we're going to kind of break down those articles a little bit and share what they mean, what their limitations were, how they're going to be beneficial to us as well as why and what we can do in the future. So let's jump into the next article that, like I said, you know, kind of feeds off of this common core article. Alright, so this next article is titled, assessing handwriting and intervention effectiveness in elementary school students a two group control study, and this was done or published at least in 2013 the actual study was, of course, done a few years before that. It takes some time to write that all up, but it was completed by Hal rotten shoe and Hinojosa. And you know what they wanted to do was examine exactly what it says in the title. They wanted to examine the effectiveness of two common approaches in improving general education children's handwriting, and so they wanted to look at legibility as well as speed. And they also used the VMI to get some scores to see if, if the VMI scores improved by practicing handwriting. So they used a practice based motor learning approach in the control group. And they actually kind of had two control groups. The other control group was a visual perceptual motor approach. And so they, of course, you know, they did the lit review, and they found that, based on previous research, a practice based approach on motor learning has been shown to be a useful strategy in handwriting remediation. So that's kind of why they went with that. And they also cited a common visual perceptual motor approach and remediation of handwriting skills, and so several studies have linked visual motor integration to be one of the most important predictors of handwriting performance. I think a lot of us know that, but it's also been documented that children with poor handwriting skills also score poorly on the VMI. There was also a little bit of confliction there, because not every kid that scores high on the VMI has good handwriting. And of course, you know, there's multiple factors that go into it, but they were kind of saying, you know, the VMI, the berry VMI, doesn't necessarily predict good or poor handwriting skills, so we can't just assume that every kid who scores high on the VMI is going to have great handwriting, and that's why it's important when we're assessing to make sure that we actually get a writing sample and see how they write in the classroom. And then also, you know, use another test, you know, try and see maybe what the ravma shows, or what the bot shows, or the M fun, you know. And so you just got to be careful with the VMI, because sometimes there can be kind of a false positive. So, so the way that they set up this study was as a non equivalent pre test post test group, aka, basically, the non equivalent means that it wasn't randomized, as you can, you know, likely understand, it's hard to do a randomized study in a school. You know, kids are already separated by their classroom. And so it's kind of hard to say, let's randomize it. So they use, they started off by using what's called the Minnesota handwriting assessment to gather baseline, baseline data. And based upon that data, they actually use kind of a unique method, in the sense that the way that they they distributed children was, they kind of took the first kid that was above the mean scores. So you know, if you have 100 kids, they took kid number 51 and they put them on one side, and then we're just going to pretend like there's not a kid number 50 they put 49 on the other side, and then so they put the kid 48 with number 51 and 52 with 49 and they kept going back and forth until they had, well, not 100 kids, but they had eight kids on each side, so a total of 16 kids per cohort, I guess you could say. And so it's almost like the way that kids would pick kickball. You know, Team One takes this kid, Team Two takes this kid, except they took the best and then they took the worst, then they took the best or the next best, and then the next worst. So that's kind of how they got the fair teams, or fair cohorts. So you could say, and so after they gave them the Minnesota handwriting assessment, they went ahead and also gave them the berry VMI to get some some baselines, but it was not used to separate the cohorts. That was after they had already separated the cohorts. So I know I wasn't very familiar with the Minnesota handwriting assessment, but it is a norm referenced and the It tests the child's ability to copy 34 letters in two and a half minutes. And we'll get into that two and a half minutes thing in a minute. But they did use the berry VMI, which most of us, I think, are familiar with, and it is normed reference, and it assesses visual motor integration using a pencil and paper test, where students copy increasingly more difficult geometric shapes. I think most of us are pretty familiar with that one, and the assess. Sirs, that the assessors that did complete the evaluations, they were blinded, and so they did not know what group that that child was in, neither pre nor post testing. So that, of course, now leads into the intervention which this intervention occurred twice a week. For 12 weeks, it took about 40 to 45 minutes at the end of the school day. And both groups were part of a quote, unquote, handwriting club. But the handwriting club differed, like I said. One was really focused on on practicing handwriting, and the other was kind of focused more on the using Visual motor integration type of activities to see if handwriting would increase. So that intensive practice group, they had 20 minutes of grade level handwriting curriculum and grade level writing task, and they were encouraged to participate in various writing different writing tasks. The other group, the visual perceptual motor group, had 20 minutes of activities from the my book of letters and numbers and the my book of shapes, both published by the the same Barry that published the VMI back in 2004 so both students from both groups, they worked in a Handwriting Without Tears book as well, because this was part of the school curriculum. So they're both using the Handwriting Without Tears book, but one had extra practice on specifically handwriting, while the other group had more practice on different visual motor integration activities, maybe copying different shapes and just other things where we're working on that eye hand coordination and putting together stuff like that. So that leads us into our results. When if you just look at the two different groups, there weren't really significant differences, or at least they weren't clear. You kind of had to get into the nitty gritty, where they kind of more broke down the two cohorts, the two groups, they kind of had to break that down even further to compare kids that had similar pre test scores and so but once you got into that area, there was definitely more improvements in the handwriting legibility scene, in those students that participated in the intensive practice than the students that participated in the visual perceptual motor group. And so it's kind of hard to understand how they did that, that separation. To really get these scores, they use a number of clusters, and when they break it down into the clusters, you can actually see how, how that was actually beneficial and and how it really did help. They have three clusters, I believe it was, and one cluster didn't quite work out that way, but those were also kids that several of those kids ended up being or needing a special education, IEP. And the other two kids that were in that cohort actually ended up being like very smart kids, and their pre test scores were just super high, and so they didn't make a lot of improvement because they were already doing so well in terms of speed. Sorry, that was in that was in terms of legibility, where we saw those differences in terms of speed, no significant differences were noted. And like I kind of mentioned earlier, the Minnesota handwriting assessment, the MHA, the way that it assesses speed is whether or not a student can copy 34 letters in a two and a half minute period. And so by the time the post test came around, just about every student was able to do that. I mean, 34 students, or 34 letters in two and a half minutes. That's not, you know, a whole lot of letters to copy, in fact, in that time period. So, and it didn't matter if you if you finished 34 letters in one minute. Or if you finish 34 letters in two minutes and four or 29 seconds, you still got that same score. You passed the handwriting speed, and so they just didn't see a significant difference in the speed. Or if there was a difference in speed. So all in all this, this, this study supports the idea that general education students do need intensive practice writing more so than intensive visual perceptual motor programs. So again, we're talking general education students. And previous studies had linked the VMI skills, or have linked that VMI skills can have a direct effect on legibility and the speed of writing, but, but, you know, they didn't expect to see a significant difference in the VMI scores because they were trying to work on handwriting. No, they weren't. These were general education students, not students who had a disability, and so a lot of the VMI scores weren't really that low, so they didn't see an increase in VMI scores in either group. They were all pretty similar. The study also reinforced the previous studies, finding that the VMI as a tool to measure handwriting legibility, like I said earlier, must be used cautiously, and we already kind of went over that, so I'm not going to beat it. Beat it day. Horse or anything. But I do want to go over some of the limitations, and that was, like I said earlier, they did lack some randomization, and that's kind of because of the study, and it's really hard to have a randomized studying in a school, because groups are already kind of pulled out, and that's kind of common among all the handwriting groups. And we'll get into that in a minute too. So there was also a lack of blinding group leaders, like I said earlier, the actual assessments were blinded, but the people, the therapists that were leading the groups, were not blinded. Of course, as you can imagine, like I said, they were only separated into groups of eight. And I believe there are three cohorts total that they that they sampled. And so it was a relatively small sample size, and earlier, like I said, the the Minnesota handwriting assessment obviously had limitations in the sense that you scored, you passed, quote, unquote, you passed if you wrote 34 letters in one minute versus 34 letters in two and a half minutes. So that's the gist of the limitations there was, you know, a possibility of subjectivity, of legibility, and that's always going to be a factor until, you know, like, there's some sort of computer generated test, but going forward, the implications on everyday OT, if this is important enough to test, then you know, maybe there should be that computerized test that can determine what is legible. You know, I always kind of tell people, you know, I literally go through and I'll look at each individual letter, and I'll put three check marks under it. I'll put S for size, I'll put F for formation, and I'll put what's the other one? I put Oh, l for, for linear, if it's sitting on the line correctly. And then I'll, you know, make a mark if there's space correctly. And then I go back and I count up every single, every single one that I put, if I didn't put something, then that means they missed it. And I have to, kind of, you know, do this whole thing where I count up the score and divide it by the total possibility, which, you know, is like three for each letter. It can be time consuming. So if someone's able to develop a computerized assessment, they can just look at handwriting or an app that can do that, I'd be down totally do that. So with that said, the other implications, of course, is that repetition and practice are important in developing handwriting skills, especially for general education students. You got to remember that this was with general education students and the handwriting club, like this handwriting club is what they did, was like 40 minutes. 4045 minutes at the end of the school day. These kids got to participate in this handwriting club. And you know what? They found that that can work a little bit so ot should be entwined into the school system, we should be working on handwriting. I know there's a lot of people that say, You know what, we're not handwriting specialists, but you know what an opportunity we have to help our teachers and help our students with handwriting, and so we should be working alongside of those teachers, to work with them to improve the skills of our students handwriting. So I hope that article makes sense. And again, that article was titled assessing handwriting intervention effectiveness in elementary school students, a two group control study in 2013 and we will be sure to link to that study in the show notes. Of course, if you are an agent, member, an OT a member, you will be able to have access to that study. Alright? So now we're about 20 minutes in. I just want to take a quick break, you know, and let everyone just take a nice deep breath, relax a little bit, and while you're doing that, I do just want to ask real quick, if you're enjoying this podcast, will you go ahead and just click that subscribe button on your iTunes Apple podcast or or Stitcher, or maybe you're on Spotify. Would you just hit that subscribe button so you don't miss any future episodes. It would really mean a lot to us, and we're gonna get right back here into the rest of the episode and look at two more, two more research based articles. But I just want to ask you all to take a minute to take a breath and let us know that you're enjoying this show by by hitting that subscribe button. And we very much appreciate that. So all right, so let's get into article number three. This article is titled effectiveness of a handwriting intervention with at risk kindergarteners. And so this one is different in the sense that the study looked at at risk kindergarteners rather than general education students. So they were looking at students that were either on an IEP or receiving RTI strategies or RTI services. However, their district was doing it, and so they wanted to see if these at risk students could improve their writing and early reading skills actually, which is also different. They looked at reading skills by participating in an occupational therapist led handwriting instruction using the Size Matters handwriting program. Of course, you know, they started off their article by looking at previous research. And you know, they found that 36 to 66% of the time that kindergarteners are in school, they they're focusing on fine motor activities. And of that, you know, one. Third to two thirds of their time, 42% of that that fine motor time is spent writing. So I mean, that could be anywhere up to almost. I mean, 20 to 40% of their day, I guess, is spent writing. And so they also looked and they found that difficulties with writing can have an effect on a child's self esteem as well as academic success. But there's also some, some inquiry as to whether or not writing can have an effect on reading. And so they wanted to look like, I said, you know, to see if reading was involved, if they could improve a child's reading by incorporating handwriting. So previous studies found, you know, that explicit handwriting instruction is important to learning to write, and in terms of how writing can affect reading, studies were also cited that state that handwriting recruits parts of the brain associated with reading, so they want to not only see if they can improve the writing, but also the like I said, the reading skills in the intro of this article, they also cited a study that I think most OTs know in their heart. You know, maybe you haven't read it, but you know it in your heart, and that is that working on performance components does not necessarily lead to increased handwriting capabilities, kind of like the last article we went over, working on visual motor integration, or visual motor skills, doesn't necessarily lead to improved handwriting. So they also mentioned that not all children with handwriting difficulties need ot and I completely agree with that, and some just need intensive practice, like the previous article said, but they do state, and again, I agree that as school based OTs, we are perfectly positioned to provide this practice to students that are not on an IEP. And this, of course, goes against the grain in many districts, but with RTI and MTSS kind of stepping up their game a little bit, it's it's something that we might be able to do. And IDEA says that ot can be used as a preventative service, to prevent disability, not just to build up a student who already has a disability, and so with handwriting referrals being the main source of OT referrals, then why not try to prevent those referrals through the RTI process? So after that, we jump into the methods of the study, and the two specific research questions proposed in this study were will at risk kindergarteners participating in a 16 week ot led Size Matters handwriting program intervention group show improved handwriting legibility. That was number one. And the second question is, will they also make considerable gains in early reading skills, including letter name recognition and letter sound recollection? And so again, like the previous study, they had two convenience groups, because this is a school, you know, the groups are already kind of separated out. And so the they did use a pre post test design. 23 students were in the intervention group and 12 students were in the control group. And again, this was not blinded. So one of the things about that is that there were different teachers as well as different schools. They didn't quite have enough kids all at one school, so these kids were spread out at a few different schools, and instruction was provided in the intervention class. I'm thinking they didn't really explicitly say this, but it kind of sounded like this was maybe an A Resource Specialist program type of classroom, an RSP classroom. And so again, this is important, because the students were still exposed to normal handwriting instruction in their general education kindergarten classroom. So both groups were receiving some sort of handwriting instruction in their class, but they were also in different classes, so you don't know whether or not teachers at different classes at different schools, even we're teaching to the same extent handwriting or effective handwriting curriculum. So that's one thing that again, when we get to the to the limitations, that's kind of a something that we'd like to see taken into account for. So this handwriting program consisted of a 16 week intervention period consisting of 30 instructional slots, basically twice a week that that comes out to being, and they use the Size Matters handwriting program by Beverly muskowit. So the reason that they use twice a week for 16 weeks was based upon a study by Holly and others in 2011 which noted their lit review of handwriting programs. And so when they did this lit review of handwriting programs, they found that studies that did not include twice a week instruction or fewer than 20 total instructional periods were not successful. And so by doing twice a week for 16 week, they met both criteria of meeting twice a week and having more than 20 total instructional periods. So going a little bit further. Sessions lasted 30 minutes and were led by the lead researcher, and she had assistance from three additional adult during the lesson period, including a certified ot assistant, an educational assistant, and support from the classroom teacher, who was also encouraged. To use the Size Matters handwriting programs during the week, even when they weren't during the session. So again, if this was like an RSP type of classroom, every time those kids were coming to her classroom or to the teacher's classroom, he or she may have been using the Size Matters handwriting program strategies that can assist children in more than just those 230 minute periods every week. And so, of course, they needed to use an assessment for a pre test, post test. And unfortunately for them, they there is no normed handwriting assessment in existence for children that are younger than six. And so since they were working with kindergarteners, you know, everyone's four and a half, five, five and a half, maybe, and so they ended up using the test of handwriting skills revised the thsr, and unfortunately, the thsr is only norm for kids six or above. So they found that this was going to be the most useful tool. And so they did end up using that. And they used scores for the lowest age, for the six years old when they were grading. So again, it's not norm for that age, but it's kind of the closest thing you're going to get to working with that that population that they had, which were those younger kids. They also used the North Dakota Title One Kinder reading standards assessment to assess the early reading skills. Specifically, they used the letter identification of letter names and letter sounds portions of this assessment. So demographics wise, the students in both both groups were pretty similar, except for the fact that there were significantly more students, percentage wise, that were on IEPs in the control group. So 83% of the students in the control group were on IEPs, versus 39% of the students in the intervention group were on the IEP and that does matter, because, you know, students who are on an IEP have been identified as having difficulties with learning, and 83% of those students on the control group were in IEPs. So that could have a little bit of an influence. Considering this, the area where we saw improvement was in the the intervention group, but more kids that were on IEP, that may have had more difficulty learning, were in that control group. Aside from that, there were no significant differences in handwriting legibility scores on the ths during the pre test, and because the scores were similar on both sides of the groups, the researchers continued with the study. So for 16 weeks, they completed their intervention using the Size Matters handwriting program, and then they completed the post test, which showed that the intervention group indeed did make significant progress. Significant progress was made both on the handwriting legibility as well as with the reading scores, specifically uppercase letter name recognition, as well as lowercase name recognition and uppercase sound recall, all increased in the intervention group. This is really important, because when it comes to fighting in our schools, you know, letting our administrators letting our teachers know how important it is to have a handwriting curriculum in the classroom? Well, we're not only just justifying now to increase the student's ability to write nicely, but we're also showing that this can have an effect on their reading scores as well. And so of course, starting early is always best. You know, getting into those kindergarten classrooms can be so beneficial, and this study is kind of showing that it's not just in that writing capabilities, but also in a student's ability to read. So of course, I want to make sure that we go over the limitations, and the researchers did do a good job at identifying limitations in the study, including that the study wasn't blinded. The lead researcher conducted both the pre and post tests, and she was also the lead in the intervention session, so not blinded. Both groups did continue to receive standard handwriting instruction, which was not well defined and was also completed by different teachers in the at different schools and the general education curriculum. So we don't exactly know what type of handwriting instruction these kids were receiving outside of also receiving the Size Matters handwriting program. So other things that did get mentioned by the researchers was that, you know, the skill of the teacher, school wide philosophies, those could both play into the facts, as well as the three to one ratio that was in the control group. You know, there were three specialists working in the classroom with the control group, versus probably only one teacher working with that control group in the general education classroom. Also, the like I said earlier, the RSP teacher was using size matters, handwriting program strategies throughout the week, not during just those two days a week periods. There was also a relatively small sample size, you know, there were only 36 kids or so, and it wasn't randomized, like we said earlier. So these are all things you have to take into consideration when we look at an article, primarily what they really wanted to. Take away from this article, or what they wanted us as the readers to take away from this article is that as OTs, we are in a prime position to really help students with writing and apparently also a little bit of reading through writing instruction. And that brings us to our last article that we're going to look at today, which is actually very new. It's actually published this year 2018 and it is titled, curriculum based handwriting programs, a systematic review with effect sizes. And this was also taken from the American Journal of Occupational Therapy. Unlike the previous two articles we just looked at, this is a systematic review. So they did not actually do a full blown pre test, post test research. However, the previous two articles were looked at in order to determine if a handwriting curriculum was effective. Because this is a systematic review. I'm going to go a little less into detail about the methods and all that good stuff for this article, but I do want to definitely go over the results, what they found out, and where they feel that this can lead handwriting curriculums as well as research on handwriting curriculum. So to get started, these are some of the programs that they actually did look at the right start. Program, the handwriting without tears. Program, the Peterson directed handwriting curriculum, the fine motor and early writing pre K curriculum, the size matters, handwriting program, right direction, handwriting clubs, and last but not least, explicit handwriting program. In completing their review, they found that eight out of the 13 total studies that they found from 2006 to 2015 showed significant improvements in at least one component of legibility. Therefore, moderate evidence was shown to exist in handwriting programs working to help legibility. Out of the 13 studies, there were also mixed results in terms of speed of writing. And in fact, actually one program, the size matters, handwriting program, actually, while it had one of the larger effects of legibility, it showed a decrease in speed. And so that is something to consider going forward when you're working with students, is what is your main focus, and are you willing to give up some of that speed for legibility? An additional factor that they looked at was the time, or the amount of sessions required in order to make this progress. If you recall, earlier, I mentioned a study in 2011 that that noted that handwriting curriculum should last a total of at least 20 sessions and be more than twice a week in frequency. The systematic review showed no correlation between all the studies researched and the amount of time that those studies worked with students individually to make progress. So there were mixed reviews there. In fact, I'll even quote the study here for a second where they say we found that more intervention hours did not appear to lead to substantially higher handwriting improvements. Additionally, they also found that kids in older grades actually had larger effect sizes, which goes against what some believe that as a student gets older, the less likely they are to make improvements on handwriting. So all in all, based upon their comparison of effect sizes, they found that no one program really stood out from the others. There were two programs, the Right Start Program and the explicit handwriting program, had non small effects on both legibility and speed. So they were both kind of in the upper, upper size of effects. However, they all varied. Some had larger effects in one area, versus versus smaller effects in another area. And some kind of had medium and medium in two areas. So they didn't want to point out, or they basically they couldn't point out one specific handwriting program that, you know, maybe you should use in your program. That's all up for debate, but they did say, based upon what I was talking about, the speed is that you need to take into account what area you want to work on. Do you want to work on speed, or do you want to work on that legibility? And maybe you can work on both, but you need to kind of focus on one area first, so maybe you want to work on that legibility and then work on the speed, all right? And that's what we're going to wrap it up today. I hope you all learned a little bit about different handwriting curriculums today. We went over quite a bit. I'm going to definitely post all those articles up on the show notes at ot schoolhouse.com, forward slash episode 13 for you to all review. This podcast is not actually going to be a professional development opportunity. However, MB, cot does allow you to earn one hour professional development when you read two articles and do a summary on those articles. So you've already basically listened to my summary. So now I suggest you go look up the articles, read them real quick, review them, write your own summary, and that way you can actually submit them and request one hour of professional development for two articles. So go ahead and do that. Also, if you have a minute, please subscribe as well as scroll on down to the bottom of this podcast and leave a comment. Let other people know what they're going to learn in this in this podcast, and appreciate it if you have any questions. Jeff. Finally, shoot us an email over at podcast@otschoolhouse.com and we will get back to you as soon as we can. Thank you and have a good rest of your week. Everyone. Take care.
Amazing Narrator
Thank you for listening to the OT schoolhouse podcast for more ways to help you and your students succeed right now, head on over to otsoolhouse.com Until next time class is dismissed.
Click on the file below to download the transcript to your device.
