The Effects of DNealian Worksheets, Tracing, and Visual Prompts to Teach Four Preschool Students with Disabilities to Write

Their Names

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCE

Insan Akademika Publications

P-ISSN: 2301-4458 E-ISSN: 2301-8038 Vol. 01, No. 02 Oct 2012

www.insikapub.com

The Effects of DNealian Worksheets, Tracing, and Visual Prompts to Teach Four Preschool Students with Disabilities to Write Their Names
Christina Maricich1, T. F. McLaughlin2, K. Mark Derby3, Diane Conley4
Gonzaga University East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 cmaricich@zagmail.gonzaga.edu Gonzaga Univesity East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 mclaughlin@gonzaga.edu Gonzaga Univesity East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025 derby@gonzaga.edu 15525 E Deer Creek Rd Chattaroy, WA 99003-9544
4 3 2 1

Key words
DNealian Handwriting, Preschoolers, Classroom research, Single case research design

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to teach four preschool boys how to write their names using tracing DNealian letters of their names. The participants were all enrolled in a special education preschool. During baseline, the students were unable to write all of the letters in their names. During intervention, the students traced unknown letters using work sheets made with DNealian Handwriting. In the second intervention, students traced specific letters of their last name. The results suggested that tracing letters using worksheets with DNealian handwriting work sheets effectively taught preschool students with disabilities to write their names. Recommendations regarding additional classroom applications of these procedures are made.

2012 Insan Akademika All Rights Reserved

Introduction

There have been several different techniques from applied behavior analysis that have been shown to be effective in teaching children handwriting skills (Alberto & Troutman, 2012; Cipani & Spooner, 1994; Haring, et al, 1978). One important handwriting skill is learning to write ones name. Many authors (GrenotScheyer & Falvey, 1986; Schnoor, et al, 1989;) have commented that being able to write one's name is also a functional skill that can be used for many things. This includes writing checks, filling out job applications, or

378

Maricich et. al.

International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 378-384

communicating with others. Not only is tracing names a functional skill, but reading may be more difficult without the preskills of writing. Approximately children at the age of three, progress intellectually and are exposed to print. The scribbling these students engage in typically begins to form some characteristics of print. (Howard, et al, 2004; Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 2004). Printing is a very beneficial skill to work on with children who are both typically developing and those who have delays. There have been different ways used to evaluate handwriting (Rondinella, 1963), Teachers implement various instructional aids to facilitate tracing in their handwriting programs (Carlson, 1970). It is difficult to master handwriting skills. These difficulties can in turn reflect negatively on the individual and result in unwanted consequences. Skills in penmanship can influence teacher and adult perceptions of how well a child writes and this may affect their ability to write letters in a correct sequence required for spelling (Graham, 1999; Graham, et al, 2000). Handwriting without Tears (HWT) has also been suggested as a very systematic way to improve the handwriting of students with or without disabilities (Olsen, 2003). HWT is a commercially available program whose cost could be out of reach for many classroom teachers. One way to improve handwriting has been through the use of consequences such as free-time (Hopkins, et al, 1971), token reinforcement for legibility (McLaughlin, 1981) response cost (McLaughlin & Malaby, 1977; McLaughlin, et al, 1987), positive practice (McLaughlin et al., 1987), systematic instruction (McLaughlin & Walsh, 1996), and employing tracing and prompts (Park, et al, 2007). These interventions have all been shown to improve the legibility of students handwriting across a wide range of students and abilities. The purpose of this study was to determine if employing prompts and tracing would improve the handwriting performance of four preschool children with disabilities. Another goal was to determine if prompts and tracing would be effective within a DNealian handwriting curricula (Thurber, 2006). This handwriting curriculum makes us of slant in teaching both manuscript and cursive letter handwriting. Therefore, making the transition from manuscript to cursive writing easier for the students (Thurber, 2006). Sample DNealian fonts and worksheets can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.dnealian.com/.

2
2.1

Method
Participants and Setting

The participants of the study were four male preschool students with disabilities in a special education classroom. Participant 1 was a 4-year-old boy with speech and articulation problems as well as having developmental delays. Participant 2 was a 5-year-old boy with speech and articulation disorders. Participant 3 was a 4-year-old male with speech and articulation delays. Participant 4 was a 4-year-old male with severe behavioral problems. All participants were scheduled to be attending kindergarten next school year and were judged to be needing instruction to acquire skills in writing their names. The study took place in a special education preschool classroom. There were two classrooms employed in the program. All four participants attended the afternoon session. There are 18 students in both classrooms in the afternoon. The students remained with the same group but alternated classrooms every other day. The classroom was staffed with one certified teacher, three paraprofessionals, two physical therapists, and approximately 53 high school students working in the classrooms throughout the day.

www.insikapub.com

379

International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 378-384

Maricich, et al.

2.2

Dependent Variable and Measurement Procedures

Data were collected in the beginning of the afternoon during work time. The dependent variable was the total number of legibility points awarded per letter. One point was given if the letter was judged to be legible and no points were awarded if the letter was viewed to be illegible. Legibility was defined as being judged as representing that specific letter in their name. Participant 1s data were out of a possible 7 points. Participant 2s data were out of 6 points. Participant 3s data were out of a possible 11 letters. Participant 4s data were out of a possible of 4 letters. These data were gathered following the verbal prompt, write your name. Each participant was given a piece of paper with two solid lines parallel of each other with dashes between the two lines. The participants were instructed to write their name on this line. The students worked at a table set apart from the rest of the students. Each session lasted 3-7 minutes. One-on-one instruction was conducted by the first author. Each participants data were gathered individually.

2.3

Experimental Design and Conditions

A multiple baseline design with one reversal across participants was employed to evaluate the teaching procedures of employing visual prompts and worksheets with DNealian handwriting. This design allows the researcher to introduce the intervention at different points in time across individuals. Therefore, the changes in handwriting can be reviewed as a funtion of our intervention. This results can be judged in terms of immediacy and level of of change, and as the number of overlapping data points in intervetnion to those recorded during baseline. (Kazdin, 2010). Experimental control is demonstrated by having an immediate change in the number of legible letters, a large increase in legible letters, and finally be having few overlapping data points. We also employed a mini-reveral as an additional means to evaluate the treatment effects of tracing and employing DNealian worksheets. If student performance decreased, then you have a demonstration of experimental control (Kazdin, 2010).

2.3.1 Baseline 1 Each of the participants was given a lined sheet of paper with a pencil. Baseline data were collected for differing numbers of sessions (range 3 to 5). Baseline data were collected at the beginning of each session to see if the participants were able to retain the material from the session on the previous day. They were prompted to write your name.

2.3.2 Worksheets of DNealian handwriting on first names (intervention 1) For each session after baseline, the participants were than given a worksheet for a specific letter. The letter was written ten times in marker, ten times in pencil, and his name was written at the bottom of the page in marker. The participants were to trace the first initial over the black marker, over the pencil, and to write the letter ten times by themselves. Than they were to trace their name and write it independently.

2.3.3 Baseline 2 For participant 3, a mini-reversal was implemented. The student was given a piece of lined paper and a pencil and given the instruction write your last name. This phase lasted for one session.

380

Insan Akademika Publications

Maricich et. al.

International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 378-384

2.3.4 Worksheets of DNealian handwriting on second names (intervention 2). For each session the participants were given a worksheet for a specific letter in their last name. This letter was written ten times in marker, ten times in pencil, and his name was written at the bottom of the page in marker. The participants were to trace the first initial over the black marker, over the pencil, and to write the letter ten times independently. Next, they were to trace their last name and then write it.

2.4

Reliability of Measurement and the Implementation of the Independent Variables

Reliability data for the dependent variable were collected 100% of sessions for all four participants. The first author worked with all participants and scored the letters written on the paper. A fellow student teacher independently graded all the students handwriting work sheets. She also determined the number of points for their names each participant would earn. The number of agreements was divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100. Any difference in scoring a letter was scored as a disagreement. Reliability for each participant and session was 100%. Reliability as to the implementation of the DNealian and the various teaching procedures was taken from student work. Reliability as to the implementation of the two interventions and baselines was 100%.

Results

Overall the results demonstrated that legibility increased for all the participants. During baseline, Participant 1 received 0 points for legibility. At the end of intervention he had received 2 points/letters that were legible. For Participant 2 baseline showed he had 0-3 points across letters, after intervention he was able to consistently get 4 points correct across letters. Participant 3 was able to get 2-4 points correct in baseline across letters. However, this participant was able to master his entire name, which is 11 letters. For Participant 3, a reversal in learning his last name was accomplished. His last name had 6 letters in it. In the first baseline he received 0 correct across letters. As shown, after intervention he was able to get all 6 letters consistently correct. Participant 4 received 0 points in baseline but after intervention was able to get 1 correct.

Discussion

Overall , the results of this study indicate that the presentation of worksheets using DNealian Handwriting can increase students ability to write specific letters in their name more legible. To fairly assess the presentation of these worksheets in tracing letters written with a black marker 10 times, in pencil 10 times, and writing on their own 10 times, plus tracing their own name and then writing their name by themselves. One possible extension to this study would be allowing the student to completely master their name and retain the information learned. The present data provide additional evidence with several participants regarding the importance of systematic instruction, which made use of visual prompts, and tracing. These outcomes replicate our previous work (Caletti, et al., 2012; Park et al., 2007) with a larger number as well as a different group of preschool students. Additional data will have to be gathered to determine if these skills maintained when these children begin kindergarten. We have made arrangements to take these data when they transition the next school year. However, at this writing, school has not started for these students.

www.insikapub.com

381

International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 378-384

Maricich, et al.

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 12 10 8 6 1

Baseline

Tracing and Visual Prompts (TVP)

Participant 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Number of Legible Letters

4 2 0 0 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Participant 2

Baseline

TVP

Participant 3

Participant 4

Sessions

Fig.1: The number of legible letters for each of the participants for the various experimental conditions. Omitted data points indicate sessions when no data were gathered for that participant due to absences.

382

Insan Akademika Publications

Maricich et. al.

International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 378-384

Conclusions

The present outcomes were generated without the use of a specialized curriculum such as Handwriting without Tears that we have employed in our previous research (LeBrun, et al., 2012; Morris, et al., 2012; Thompson, et al., 2012). We were simply able to employ portions of the DNealian program and systematic instruction. Since both approaches have been shown to teach legible writing, it is would be up to the classroom teacher or other specialists in the district regarding which program or procedures to employ. There has been no comparisons between Handwriting without Tears (Olsen, 2005) to DNealian (Thuber, 1999) in the peer reviewed literature. This may well be a fruitful area for future research. Strengths of the study were that each participant was able to work on the letter that they needed in order to be able to write their own name. Another strength was that the first author was able to work one-on-one with each participant. This study can also be carried out very easily in the classroom setting or at home and can be done with more than one student at a time. The data collection and analysis were also easy to implement and carry out. This study was very cost effective, and the only materials needed are paper, a black marker, worksheets, and pencils. Limitations of the study included limited amount of time in doing this study with the participants. Also, due to one of the participants behavior, it was difficult at times to get the student to complete his work. One of the purposes of the research was to help prepare four preschoolers in writing their name before transitioning or being placed into a general education classroom setting. Since each participant had specific developmental delays learning this skill it was important so as to prevent them from falling behind academically in writing their name. From the data presented here, each participant improved their legibility in their handwriting.

Acknowledgements
This research was completed in partial fulfillment for an Endorsement in Special Education from Gonzaga University and the State of Washington. The author would like to thank the participants,

References
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2012). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Caletti, E., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Rinaldi, L. (2012). The effects of using visual prompts, tracing, and consequences to teach two preschool students with disabilities to write their names. Academic Research International, 2(3). 265-270. Retrieved from: http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue.html Carlson, R. K. (1965). Sparkling words: Two hundred practical and creative writing ideas. Berkley, CA: Wagner Printing Company. Cipani, E. & Spooner, F. (Eds.) (1994). Curricular and instructional approaches for persons with severe handicaps. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ford, A., Schnoor, R., Davern, L., Black, J., & Kaiser, K. (1989). Reading and writing. In A. Ford, R. Schnoor, L. Davern, J. Black, & P. Dempsey (Eds.), The Syracuse community-referenced guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78-98.

www.insikapub.com

383

International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 378-384

Maricich, et al.

Graham, S, Harris, K., & Fink, B. (2000). Extra handwriting instruction: Prevent writing difficulties right from the start. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(2), 88-91. Grenot-Scheyer, M., & Falvey, M. A. (1986). Functional academic skills. In M. A. Falvey (Ed.). Community based curriculum (pp. 187-215). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Hopkins, B. L., & Schutte, R. C., & Garton, K. L. (1971). The effects of access to a playroom on the rate and quality of printing and writing of first and second-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 77-88. Kazdin, A. E. (2010). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. LeBrun, M., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & McKenzie, M. (2012). The effects of using Handwriting without Tears to teach thirty-one integrated preschoolers of varying academic ability to write their names. Academic Research International, 2(2), 373--378. Retrieved from http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue.html McLaughlin, T. F. (1981). An analysis of token reinforcement: A control group comparison with special education youth employing measures of clinical significance. Child Behavior Therapy, 3, 43-51. McLaughlin, T. F., Mabee, S. W., Byram, B., & Reiter, S. (1987). Effects of academic positive practice and response cost on writing legibility of behaviorally disordered and learning disabled junior high school students. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 4, 216-272. McLaughlin, T. F., & Malaby, J. E. (1977). The comparative effects of token reinforcement with and without a response cost contingency with special education children. Educational Research Quarterly, 2, 34-41. McLaughlin, T. F. & Walsh, A. L. (1996). Training pre-adolescent and adolescent students with moderate mental retardation name writing skills. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 8, 105115. Morris, K., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & McKenzie, M. (2012). The differential effects of using Handwriting without Tears and Mat Man materials to teach seven preschoolers prewriting skills using the draw a person with sixteen specific body parts. Academic Research International, 2(1), 590-598. Retrieved from: http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue.html Olsen, J. Z. (2005). Handwriting without Tears: Bridging the educational gap. OT Practice, 10(3), 7-8. Park, C., Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2007). Effects of fading, modeling, prompting, and direct instruction on letter legibility for two preschool students with physical disabilities. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 29(3), 13-21. Rondinella, O. E. (1963). An evaluation of subjectivity of elementary school teachers grading handwriting. Elementary English, 40, 531-532. Scholastic Early Childhood Today (2004). Introducing children to the world of Writing. Scholastic Early Childhood Today 18(4). Thompson, J., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & Conley, D. (2012). Using tracing and modeling with a Handwriting without Tears worksheet to increase handwriting legibility for two preschool students with developmental delays. Academic Research International, 2(2), 309-314. Retrieved from: http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue.html Thurber, D. L., (1999). Education. DNealian handwriting. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Scott Foresman/Pearson

384

Insan Akademika Publications