12
Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting assessment Oliver Tucha, Lara Tucha and Klaus W. Lange Abstract A recent review of handwriting research in Literacy concluded that current curricula of handwriting education focus too much on writing style and neatness and neglect the aspect of handwriting automaticity. This conclusion is supported by evidence in the field of graphonomic research, where a range of experiments have been used to investigate this issue from a movement perspective. The present article offers a brief introduction to a graphonomic approach to handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho- nomic research about handwriting automaticity. These findings indicate that attentional control to any characteristic of the writing process (e.g. direction, lexical status, movement, style) results in an impair- ment of handwriting automaticity. These findings support and add a new dimension to previous conclusions. Key words: kinematics, writing, motor control Introduction In an excellent discussion published in a recent issue of this journal, Medwell and Wray (2007) summarised the findings of recent research on handwriting, which have been reported in the fields of neuropsychology, cognitive psychology and special needs education. One of the main conclusions of the authors was that the present curriculum of handwriting education focuses primarily on the aspect of well-formed, joined hand- writing while speed of handwriting and handwriting fluency or even automaticity are neglected. The terms fluency and automaticity refer to a general distinction between two broad classes of processes. On the one hand there are automatic processes that are executed rapidly and with minimal conscious effort. On the other hand controlled processes have been described as effort demanding (Hasher and Zacks, 1979; Kahneman, 1973; Morray, 1967; Norman and Bobrow, 1975; Pribram and McGuiness, 1975; Schnei- der and Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977). However, processes are not inherently controlled or automatic but are controlled under certain conditions and automatic under other conditions (Cohen, 1993; Cohen et al., 1990; Kahneman and Henik, 1981; MacLeod and Dunbar, 1988; Neumann, 1984; Sanders et al., 1987; Van Zomeren and Brouwer, 1994). For example, handwriting is a task that at first requires attentional control but becomes automatic with increasing practice (Sassoon, 1993). When handwriting becomes automated, cognitive resources are freed up. These resources can be used for higher-level processes such as the generation of ideas or vocabulary selection (Berninger and Swanson, 1994; Medwell and Wray, 2007). Therefore, as discussed by Medwell and Wray (2007), the neglect of fluency or automaticity of handwriting in the present curriculum might be detrimental for a significant number of children with writing difficulties. For that reason, the authors conclude that there is a need for a screening instrument that has to be designed to identify children with difficulties regarding the automaticity of handwriting. With regard to Medwell and Wray (2007), speed of letter generation may be a good measure for hand- writing fluency. Besides the findings presented by Medwell and Wray (2007), there is additional empirical evidence indicat- ing that the emphasis placed on neatness of hand- writing in the school curriculum is misplaced. This evidence is produced in the field of graphonomic research. Graphonomic research may also give support in finding a definite measure of automaticity. The term graphonomics describes a multidisciplinary and inter- disciplinary research field that is analysing the relationships between the planning and generation of handwriting and drawing movements, the resulting spatial traces of writing and drawing instruments and the dynamic features of these traces. The aim of the present article is to make the findings of graphonomic research more accessible to educators by describing the graphonomic approach to handwriting analysis and by presenting briefly the experimental graphonomic research confirming the conclusions of Medwell and Wray (2007). For illustration and clarification of the results provided by the graphonomic approach to handwriting assessment, a number of figures depicting handwriting specimens and corresponding velocity profiles are included in the text. These handwriting specimens were produced by the same right-handed adult writer who performed the same writing tasks as reported in the underlying studies but who did not participate in these studies. Literacy Volume 42 Number 3 November 2008 145 r UKLA 2008. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

  • Upload
    vannhu

  • View
    270

  • Download
    5

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

Graphonomics, automaticity andhandwriting assessmentOliver Tucha, Lara Tucha and Klaus W. Lange

Abstract

A recent review of handwriting research in Literacyconcluded that current curricula of handwritingeducation focus too much on writing style andneatness and neglect the aspect of handwritingautomaticity. This conclusion is supported by evidencein the field of graphonomic research, where a range ofexperiments have been used to investigate this issuefrom a movement perspective. The present articleoffers a brief introduction to a graphonomic approachto handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. Thesefindings indicate that attentional control to anycharacteristic of the writing process (e.g. direction,lexical status, movement, style) results in an impair-ment of handwriting automaticity. These findingssupport and add a new dimension to previousconclusions.

Key words: kinematics, writing, motor control

Introduction

In an excellent discussion published in a recent issue ofthis journal, Medwell and Wray (2007) summarised thefindings of recent research on handwriting, whichhave been reported in the fields of neuropsychology,cognitive psychology and special needs education.One of the main conclusions of the authors was that thepresent curriculum of handwriting education focusesprimarily on the aspect of well-formed, joined hand-writing while speed of handwriting and handwritingfluency or even automaticity are neglected.

The terms fluency and automaticity refer to a generaldistinction between two broad classes of processes. Onthe one hand there are automatic processes that areexecuted rapidly and with minimal conscious effort.On the other hand controlled processes have beendescribed as effort demanding (Hasher and Zacks,1979; Kahneman, 1973; Morray, 1967; Norman andBobrow, 1975; Pribram and McGuiness, 1975; Schnei-der and Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977).However, processes are not inherently controlled orautomatic but are controlled under certain conditionsand automatic under other conditions (Cohen, 1993;

Cohen et al., 1990; Kahneman and Henik, 1981;MacLeod and Dunbar, 1988; Neumann, 1984; Sanderset al., 1987; Van Zomeren and Brouwer, 1994). Forexample, handwriting is a task that at first requiresattentional control but becomes automatic withincreasing practice (Sassoon, 1993). When handwritingbecomes automated, cognitive resources are freed up.These resources can be used for higher-level processessuch as the generation of ideas or vocabulary selection(Berninger and Swanson, 1994; Medwell and Wray,2007). Therefore, as discussed by Medwell and Wray(2007), the neglect of fluency or automaticity ofhandwriting in the present curriculum might bedetrimental for a significant number of children withwriting difficulties. For that reason, the authorsconclude that there is a need for a screening instrumentthat has to be designed to identify children withdifficulties regarding the automaticity of handwriting.With regard to Medwell and Wray (2007), speed ofletter generation may be a good measure for hand-writing fluency.

Besides the findings presented by Medwell and Wray(2007), there is additional empirical evidence indicat-ing that the emphasis placed on neatness of hand-writing in the school curriculum is misplaced. Thisevidence is produced in the field of graphonomicresearch. Graphonomic research may also give supportin finding a definite measure of automaticity. The termgraphonomics describes a multidisciplinary and inter-disciplinary research field that is analysing therelationships between the planning and generation ofhandwriting and drawing movements, the resultingspatial traces of writing and drawing instruments andthe dynamic features of these traces. The aim of thepresent article is to make the findings of graphonomicresearch more accessible to educators by describing thegraphonomic approach to handwriting analysis andby presenting briefly the experimental graphonomicresearch confirming the conclusions of Medwell andWray (2007). For illustration and clarification of theresults provided by the graphonomic approach tohandwriting assessment, a number of figures depictinghandwriting specimens and corresponding velocityprofiles are included in the text. These handwritingspecimens were produced by the same right-handedadult writer who performed the same writing tasks asreported in the underlying studies but who did notparticipate in these studies.

Literacy Volume 42 Number 3 November 2008 145

r UKLA 2008. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Page 2: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

The graphonomic approach

In graphonomic research, handwriting is not under-stood as a product. The style and neatness of hand-writing are therefore not of particular interest ingraphonomic research. Handwriting is rather under-stood as a process that is characterised by spatial andkinematic parameters. For example, when performingan ascending stroke of a letter, e.g. the letter ‘l’, one canmeasure various parameters such as the position of thepen tip on a sheet of paper and the time course. Velocityof movement execution can be calculated from theparameters time course and position; acceleration ofmovement execution can be derived from velocity.Medwell and Wray (2007) implicitly made a distinctionbetween a product-oriented and a process-orientedapproach to the examination of handwriting bycriticising that national testing in England focuses onneatness of handwriting but neglects handwritingspeed.

The above-mentioned spatial and kinematic para-meters of movement execution during handwriting(position, time, velocity and acceleration) can easily berecorded by digitising tablets (Figure 1). Commerciallyavailable digitising tablets are able to measure spatialand kinematic parameters continuously during writ-ing and are able to localise the tip of the pen with anaccuracy of 0.2 mm in both directions (x/y). Further-more, movements of the pen tip above the paper can

also be recorded (up to a maximum of 1.3 cm). Spatialand kinematic data are stored on a personal computer,which is connected to the tablet. Data processing can beperformed with commercially available computationalprograms for the analysis of handwriting movementssuch as CS, Oasis or Neurosoft (De Jong et al., 1996;Mai and Marquardt, 1992; Teulings and Van Gemmert,2003).

In the literature, various kinematic parameters havebeen discussed (e.g. maximum velocities and accelera-tions) to describe the execution of handwriting move-ments of healthy children and adults (Van Galen et al.,1993) as well as children and adults with a variety ofdisorders such as attention-deficit hyperactivity dis-order or major depression (Tucha and Lange, 2001;Tucha et al., 2002). The parameter ‘‘number ofinversions in the velocity profile’’ of a movement(abbreviated as NIV) has been shown to be ofparticular importance in the assessment of highlyskilled motor activities (the term ‘skilled’ refers in thisarticle to the fluent execution of movements). Toexplain this parameter the example of a car standingat a red traffic light by a crossing will be used. The roadahead is straight and about 150 m further on is a secondtraffic light on red. The first traffic light now changes togreen (Figure 2A). The car is now able to move and thiswill be with a different velocity over time: at thebeginning of the movement the velocity is modest butthe velocity will continuously increase until a max-imum is reached. The maximum velocity is reached atabout the midpoint of the distance. After the midpointof the distance the velocity has to be reducedcontinuously. Otherwise, the car would not stop atthe second traffic light, which is still showing a redsignal. This reduction of velocity is not performed byan emergency stop. The velocity is reduced slowly sothat it is more comfortable for the driver and thepassengers. The result is that the profile of velocity hassome specific properties (Figure 2B), such as a smoothcourse, a bell-shaped profile and only one inversion(NIV 5 1). The parameter NIV describes the number ofdirectional changes in velocity during movementexecution. It represents a measure of how smooth,and therefore fluent (automatic), handwriting move-ments are. A velocity profile with only one inversion(NIV 5 1) indicates a fully automated movement (alsodescribed as open-loop or absolutely fluent move-ment). Automated movements are those performedwith the least motor effort possible (only one change invelocity).

However, this driver was, of course, not such a skilleddriver all of the time. When the driver steered a car forthe first time, for example during a driving lesson, andhe approached the same traffic situation, the profile ofvelocity presumably had a different course. When thefirst traffic light changed to green the driver may haveaccelerated (Figure 2C), but possibly far too muchbecause of a lack of familiarity with driving a car.Consequently, the velocity was reduced by slowingFigure 1: Subject writing on a writing tablet.

146 Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting assessment

r UKLA 2008

Page 3: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

down the car (also described as negative acceleration).Because the driver had not yet developed a feeling ofhow the car performed, the velocity may have beenreduced too much, and an increase of velocity (positiveacceleration) was therefore necessary again. Thisresulted possibly in a velocity that was not appropriatefor the situation so that a reduction of the speed wasnecessary again. Acceleration and deceleration mayrepeatedly be necessary in this particular situationuntil the car stops at the second traffic light. Multiplechanges in velocity leave a more jagged pattern, whichindicates lack of automaticity (non-automated move-ment). In conclusion, automated and non-automatedmovements can be distinguished from one another byprofiles of velocity.

The same profiles can be found when assessinghandwriting movements by using a digitising tablet.Figure 3 shows the handwriting specimen of theletter combination ‘ll’ with the corresponding velo-city profile of a skilled right-handed adult writerwho was asked to write a simple sentence with theright and the left hand. The movement underlyingthe letter combination ‘ll’ comprises four strokes(two up-strokes and two down-strokes). Therefore,the total of four inversions in the velocity profile ofthis particular letter combination indicates a fullyautomated movement (Figure 3, first line). Whenwriting with the left non-dominant hand the move-ment is characterised by a flattened velocity profilewith an increased number of inversions in velocity

Figure 2: Illustration of the parameter number of inversions (NIV) in the velocity profile on the example of an accelerating anddecelerating car. The inversions in the velocity profiles are marked by circles.

Literacy Volume 42 Number 3 November 2008 147

r UKLA 2008

Page 4: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

(Figure 3, second line). This profile indicates a non-automated movement that was consciously con-trolled. This control was necessary because thewriter was not experienced in writing with the lefthand.

Automaticity of handwriting

The analysis of velocity profiles of handwritingprovided evidence of the existence of simple motorprogrammes. It has been suggested that free hand-writing in healthy subjects is formed by the sequentialactivation of these motor programmes, which areprobably stored in the form of a spatial code(Thomassen and Van Galen, 1992). Single letter-strokes, the smallest relevant units of the writingprocess, are formed by automated movements that arecharacterised by velocity profiles with only oneinversion of the direction and a bell-shaped course.Automated movements are therefore movements thatare optimised with regard to their motor efficiency(Kawato, 1996). Single strokes of automated move-ments can be completed within 100–150 ms (Teulings,1996) and lead to a smooth and repetitive course. Thisrepeat accuracy can be observed when asking a skilledwriter to write a specific word several times or torepeatedly sign a piece of paper. While the writingtraces usually differ markedly between trials, thevelocity profiles display great similarity (Figure 4).

The above-mentioned example of a moving car alsosuggests that the fluent execution of a movement isindependent of the speed of movement execution. As acar can move fluently at different velocities, anautomated handwriting movement can be performedwith both a decreased and an increased speed ofexecution. Figure 5 shows the handwriting specimensof a skilled writer when being instructed to write innormal handwriting at the normal handwriting speed,at an increased speed and at a decreased speed. Thevelocity profiles indicate that all handwriting move-ments represent fully automated movements. Thisfinding complements the article of Medwell and Wray(2007), who discussed that in the assessment ofhandwriting efficiency the speed of writing has to beconsidered. However, it is not the speed/velocity itselfthat provides information about handwriting auto-maticity, it is the course of the velocity profile.

Figure 3: Handwriting specimens (left column) of the letter combination ‘ll’ with corresponding velocity profiles (rightcolumn) of a right-handed man who was asked to write a simple test sentence with his right hand (first line) and withhis left hand (second line). Note: Y is the vertical component of strokes (in mm); X, the horizontal component ofstrokes (in mm); VY, the velocity in vertical direction (in mm/s); t, the time (in ms); NIV, the number of inversions invelocity.

Figure 4: Superimposed profiles of handwriting specimenswith corresponding velocity profile (vy).

148 Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting assessment

r UKLA 2008

Page 5: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

Factors influencing the production ofautomated handwriting movements

While a number of graphonomic studies have beenperformed to assess the effects of psychopathology andpsychopharmacology (Lange et al., 2007; Tucha andLange, 2004a; Tucha et al., 2006a, b) on handwritingautomaticity, only a small number of graphonomicstudies have examined the effect of attentional controlon the automation of movement execution duringhandwriting. In the following section we will brieflypresent a series of experiments that we performed in thisarea. In these experiments skilled writers were asked todirect their attention during writing to the direction ofwriting (mirror writing), the lexical status (writing ofnonwords), the writing movement itself (visual andmental control of writing) and the style of writing (neathandwriting). Finally, we examined the effect of thepromise of a reward on movement execution duringhandwriting. Handwriting movements were recorded

in all experiments by using a digitising tablet. Grapho-nomic analysis of handwriting movements was per-formed using the commercially available computationalprogram for the analysis of handwriting movements CS(Mai and Marquardt, 1992). Although most of thesestudies were performed on adults, the findings caneasily be transferred to children.

Direction of writing (mirror writing)

Spontaneous mirror writing has been reported in left-handed adults. On the basis of these findings, Tankleand Heilman (1983) performed a study on mirrorwriting in left-handed and right-handed adults. Theauthors analysed the time needed by participants towrite short sentences, and the number of errors made.On the basis of their finding, Tankle and Heilman (1983)claimed that left-handers are better than right-handers inmirror-reversed writing. In an experiment (Tucha et al.,

Figure 5: Handwriting specimens (left column) of the letter combination ‘ll’ with corresponding velocity profiles (rightcolumn). The participant was asked to write at the normal handwriting speed (first line), to write faster than normal(second line) and to write slower than normal (third line). Note: Y is the vertical component of strokes (in mm); X, thehorizontal component of strokes (in mm); VY, the velocity in vertical direction (in mm/s); T, the time (in ms); NIV, thenumber of inversions in velocity.

Literacy Volume 42 Number 3 November 2008 149

r UKLA 2008

Page 6: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

2000), we examined this hypothesis by assessing theautomaticity of writing movements (fluency) in normaland mirror script of left and right-handers. Theparticipants were asked to write and mirror write asimple sentence repetitively on a digitising tablet.Graphonomic analysis of handwriting movementssupported the finding of Tankle and Heilman (1983)that left-handers perform better in mirror writing tasks.However, in comparison with their normal writing, bothleft and right-handers displayed a significant increase inthe number of inversions in velocity when asked to writein mirror-reversed script (Figure 6). In conclusion, thereverse of the direction of writing resulted in asignificant impairment of handwriting automaticity.Because participants were not used to writing inmirror-reversed script, attention has to be directed tothe writing process. Consequently, the automated move-ment underlying a stroke has to be segmented intomultiple sub-movements.

Lexical status of writing (writing of nonwords)

In another experiment on the automaticity of hand-writing, we varied the lexical status of writing(Tucha et al., 2004). Skilled adult writers were askedto write lists of words and nonwords to dictation thatwere presented with a cassette recorder. The non-words used in the experiment corresponded with thespelling rules of familiar German words (e.g. exist-ing word: Berg (mountain); non-word: Rerg). Thedesign of this experiment was based on the study

performed by Campbell (1983), who examined theeffect of lexical priming through a word that is heardbefore a non-word (target) is written. The grapho-nomic analysis of handwriting movements of ourparticipants revealed a significant difference be-tween the participants’ writing of words and non-words with regard to the number of inversionsin velocity. During the writing of nonwords, thenumber of inversions in velocity was increased,indicating that the execution of handwriting move-ments was less fluent (Figure 7). This increaseddysfluency of handwriting movements can be ex-plained by the allocation of attention to the writingprocess. It can be assumed that when a word or non-word is presented, phonological, orthographic andalso semantic information is activated (Seidenbergand McClelland, 1989). This retrieval process ofsemantic information may fail when nonwords haveto be processed. Furthermore, no pre-stored se-quences of handwriting movements can be retrievedwhen writing nonwords. Consequently, attentionhas to be directed on the processing of the nonword,which resulted in an increased processing time thatmay interfere with the production of automatedhandwriting movements.

Control of writing movement (visual and mentalcontrol)

In a number of experimental studies, the role of visionand visual feedback in the spatial and temporal control

Figure 6: Handwriting specimens (left column) of the letter combination ‘‘ll’’ with corresponding velocity profiles (rightcolumn). The participant was asked to write a simple sentence in normal script (first line) and in mirror-reversedscript (second line). Note: Y is the vertical component of strokes (in mm); X, the horizontal component of strokes (inmm); VY, the velocity in vertical direction (in mm/s); T, the time (in ms); NIV, the number of inversions in velocity.

150 Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting assessment

r UKLA 2008

Page 7: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

of handwriting were assessed. These studies wereconcerned with the handwriting performance ofhealthy adults (Marquardt et al., 1996; Smyth andSilvers, 1987; Van Doorn and Keuss, 1992, 1993; VanGalen et al., 1989, 1994) and patients with neurologicaldisorders (Smith and Fucetola, 1995). It has beenshown that the deprivation of vision has no effect onhandwriting automaticity (Marquardt et al., 1996).Because automated handwriting movements are exe-cuted very fast (Teulings, 1996), there is not enoughtime for any online correction of writing movementson the basis of visual feedback (Schenk et al., 2000).Therefore, the production of individual strokes duringhandwriting is primarily performed under feed-forward control (Teulings, 1996). Visual informationis only used to correct the feed-forward parameters forthe execution of subsequent strokes (Schenk et al.,2000). In conclusion, visual feedback is not used tocontrol the writing movement but to monitor the strokesize, the form and the positioning of letters duringwriting. Because children are usually encouraged tocontrol their handwriting movements during theacquisition of handwriting skills, we performed anexperiment (Tucha and Lange, 2005) to study the effectof conscious control on handwriting fluency in skilledadult writers. Participants were asked to write a shortsentence under different conditions. Conditions in-cluded normal writing, writing with eyes closed, writingwhile visually tracking the pen tip and writing with closedeyes while mentally tracking the highest position in eachletter. While graphonomic analysis of handwritingmovements revealed no differences between normal

handwriting and writing with closed eyes, markeddifferences were observed between normal writingand the other writing conditions (Figure 8). Incomparison with movements during normal hand-writing, movements were less fluent when participantswere requested to write while visually tracking the pentip and when they were asked to write with closed eyeswhile mentally tracking the highest position in eachletter. The findings confirm studies reporting thatautomated handwriting movements are independentof visual feedback (Marquardt et al., 1996). In addition,conscious visual and mental control of graphomotoroutput obviously hampers the production of auto-mated handwriting movements.

Style of writing (neat handwriting)

The curricula of many countries place emphasis uponaccurate handwriting as defined by neatness andcorrect letter formation. Children with poor hand-writing, however, often experience frustration, low-ered self-esteem and a decreased level of motivation(Cornhill and Case-Smith, 1996; Kaminsky andPowers, 1981) and are often misjudged as unmotivatedby their teachers (Whalen et al., 1981). Therefore,children try to direct as much attention as possible(conscious control) to the accuracy of their hand-writing (neatness) in order to diminish stress andfrustration. However, as reported in the previoussections, any kind of conscious control on handwritinghas been shown to be detrimental with regard to

Figure 7: Handwriting specimens (left column) of the letter combination ‘ll’ with corresponding velocity profiles (rightcolumn). The participant was asked to write words (first line) and nonwords to dictation (second line). Note: Y is thevertical component of strokes (in mm); X, the horizontal component of strokes (in mm); VY, the velocity in verticaldirection (in mm/s); T, the time (in ms); NIV, the number of inversions in velocity.

Literacy Volume 42 Number 3 November 2008 151

r UKLA 2008

Page 8: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

handwriting automaticity. In a number of studies onhealthy children, children with attention-deficit dis-order and healthy adults (Tucha and Lange, 2001,2004b, 2005), we could demonstrate that intention towrite neatly interferes with automated handwritingprocesses. Figure 9 shows the handwriting specimen ofthe letter combination ‘ll’ with the corresponding

velocity profile of a skilled adult writer who was askedto write in normal handwriting and to write in neathandwriting. While the velocity profile underlying thenormal handwriting movements has only one inver-sion of velocity per stroke indicating a perfectlyautomated movement, the velocity profile in the neathandwriting condition is characterised by multiple

Figure 8: Handwriting specimens (left column) of the letter combination ‘ll’ with corresponding velocity profiles (rightcolumn). The participant was asked to write a simple test sentence under four different conditions. The conditionsconsisted of normal writing (first line), writing with eyes closed (second line), writing while visually tracking the pentip (third line) and writing with closed eyes while mentally tracking the highest position in each letter (fourth line).Note: Y is the vertical component of strokes (in mm); X, the horizontal component of strokes (in mm); VY, the velocityin vertical direction (in mm/s); T, the time (in ms); NIV, the number of inversions in velocity.

152 Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting assessment

r UKLA 2008

Page 9: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

inversions of velocity per stroke indicating a non-automated movement.

Promise of a reward

Because of the significance attached to handwritingstyle in school curricula, children are praised andrewarded when they write neatly. When children writeneatly, teachers give better marks in their assessments,use verbal praise or even stick stickers of well-knownand highly valued comic heroes in the pupils’ exercisebooks. Furthermore, children receive positive feedbackfor neat handwriting from their parents. In anunpublished study, we examined how parents checkthe homework of their children and found that parentsonly focus on the neatness and accuracy of hand-writing by neglecting the content and correctness ofthe homework. Therefore, children are not only taught

but also reinforced to direct attention to their hand-writing movements. This may delay the developmentof handwriting automaticity in children. In anotherexperiment, we examined the effect of the promise of areward on handwriting in children and adults (Tuchaet al., 2007). The participants were asked to write asimple sentence repetitively in cursive script underthree different conditions. The conditions consisted ofnormal writing, neat handwriting and the promise of areward for neat handwriting. In the latter condition, theparticipants were told that they could earn a couponfor a movie at the local cinema if their handwriting inthis condition was among the best three of allparticipants in their age group (children or adults).The latter condition should resemble the above-mentioned school situation in which neat handwritingis rewarded. Graphonomic analysis of handwritingmovements revealed significant differences betweenconditions. In comparison with movements during

Figure 9: Handwriting specimens (left column) of the letter combination ‘ll’ with corresponding velocity profiles (rightcolumn). The participant was asked to write a simple test sentence under three different conditions. The conditionsconsisted of normal handwriting (first line), neat handwriting (second line) and neat handwriting with reward (thirdline). Note: Y is the vertical component of strokes (in mm); X, the horizontal component of strokes (in mm); VY, thevelocity in vertical direction (in mm/s); T, the time (in ms); NIV, the number of inversions in velocity.

Literacy Volume 42 Number 3 November 2008 153

r UKLA 2008

Page 10: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

normal handwriting, the number of inversions invelocity profiles was significantly increased when bothchildren and young adults were asked to write neatly.Interestingly, the promise of a reward for very neathandwriting resulted in a further increase of thenumber of inversions in velocity (Figure 9). Thepresent results indicate that both the instruction given(neat handwriting) and motivational factors (winninga reward) may impair handwriting automaticity.

Conclusion

In the present article, the findings of experimentsperformed in the field of graphonomic researchregarding the effect of attentional control of hand-writing movements have been reviewed. It has beendemonstrated that attentional control to any character-istic of the writing process (direction, lexical status,movement, style) resulted in an impairment of hand-writing automaticity. These findings support theconclusions of Medwell and Wray (2007), who assumethat the national curriculum and testing of hand-writing puts too much emphasis on writing style andneatness and neglects the automation of handwriting.The graphonomic findings also indicate that thedevelopment of handwriting automaticity may behampered by overemphasising writing style andneatness. As pointed out by Medwell and Wray(2007), automaticity of handwriting is crucial. Theautomatic production of strokes, letters and wordsfrees up mental resources for the process of composingor the understanding of the content of texts or lessons.Therefore, the consideration of fluency or automaticityof handwriting in national curricula appears to benecessary if not mandatory. No reliable information isavailable on when handwriting becomes automatic inchildren and the frequency and distribution of hand-writing difficulties associated with handwriting auto-maticity among children are unknown. The design andintroduction of a screening instrument as suggested byMedwell and Wray (2007) would therefore be animportant step.

References

BERNINGER, V. W. and SWANSON, H. L. (1994) ‘Modifying Hayesand Flowers’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning anddeveloping writing’, in E. C. Butterfield (Ed.) Children’s Writing:Toward a Process Theory of the Development of Skilled Writing.Hampton Hill: JAI Press, pp. 57–81.

CAMPBELL, R. (1983) Writing nonwords to dictation. Brain andLanguage, 19, pp. 153–178.

COHEN, D. J., MCCLELLAND, J. L. and DUNBAR, K. (1990) On thecontrol of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processingaccount of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, pp. 332–361.

COHEN, R. A. (1993) The Neuropsychology of Attention. New York:Plenum Press.

CORNHILL, H. and CASE-SMITH, J. (1996) Factors that relate togood and poor handwriting. American Journal of OccupationalTherapy, 50, pp. 732–739.

DE JONG, W. P., HULSTIJN, W., KOSTERMAN, B. J. M. and SMITS-ENGELSMAN, B. C. M. (1996) ‘OASIS software and its application

in experimental handwriting research’, in M. L. Simner, C. G.

Leedham and A. J. W. M. Thomassen (Eds.) Handwriting andDrawing Research: Basic and Applied Issues. Amsterdam: IOS Press,

pp. 429–440.HASHER, L. and ZACKS, R. T. (1979) Automatic and effortful

processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 108, pp.

356–388.KAHNEMAN, D. (1973) Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.KAHNEMAN, D. and HENIK, A. (1981) ‘Perceptual organization

and attention’, in M. Kubovy and J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.) PerceptualOrganization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 181–211.

KAMINSKY, S. and POWERS, R. (1981) Remediation of handwriting

difficulties: a practical approach. Academic Therapy, 17, pp. 19–25.KAWATO, M. (1996) ‘Trajectory formation in arm movements:

minimization principles and procedures’, in H. N. Zelaznik (Ed.)

Advances in Motor Learning and Control. Champaign: Human

Kinetics, pp. 225–259.LANGE, K. W., TUCHA, L., WALITZA, S., GERLACH, M., LINDER,

M. and TUCHA, O. (2007) Interaction of attention and

graphomotor functions in children with attention deficit hyper-

activity disorder. Journal of Neural Transmission, 72.(Suppl.), pp.

249–259.MACLEOD, C. M. and DUNBAR, K. (1988) Training and Stroop-like

interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, pp.

126–135.MAI, N. and MARQUARDT, C. (1992) CS – Computer-Assisted

Movement Analysis in Handwriting. Operational Manual. Munich:

MedCom Verlag.MARQUARDT, C., GENTZ, W. and MAI, N. (1996) ‘On the role of

vision in skilled handwriting’, in M. L. Simner, C. G. Leedham and

A. J. W. M. Thomassen (Eds.) Handwriting and Drawing Research:Basic and Applied Issues. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 87–97.

MEDWELL, J. and WRAY, D. (2007) Handwriting: what do we know

and what do we need to know? Literacy, 41, pp. 10–15.MORRAY, N. (1967) Where is capacity limited? A survey and a

model. Acta Psychologica, 27, pp. 84–92.NEUMANN, O. (1984) ‘Automatic processing: a review of recent

findings and a plea for an old theory’, in W. Printz and A. F.

Sanders (Eds.) Cognition and Motor Processes. Berlin: Springer

Verlag, pp. 255–293.NORMAN, D. A. and BOBROW, D. G. (1975) On data-limited and

resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, pp. 44–64.PRIBRAM, K. H. and MCGUINESS, D. (1975) Arousal, activation and

effort in the control of attention. Psychological Review, 82, pp. 116–

149.SANDERS, R. E., GONZALEZ, E. G., MURPHY, M. D., LIDDLE, C. L.

and VITINA, J. R. (1987) Frequency of occurrence and the criteria

for automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, pp. 241–250.

SASSOON, R. (1993) The Art and Science of Handwriting. Oxford:

Intellect.SCHENK, T., WALTHER, E. U. and MAI, N. (2000) Closed- and open-

loop handwriting performance in patients with multiple sclerosis.

European Journal of Neurology, 7, pp. 269–279.SCHNEIDER, W. and SHIFFRIN, R. M. (1977) Controlled and

automatic human information processing: 1. Detection, search

and attention. Psychological Review, 84, pp. 1–66.SEIDENBERG, S. M. and MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1989) A distributed

developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psycholo-gical Review, 96, pp. 447–452.

SHIFFRIN, R. M. and SCHNEIDER, W. (1977) Controlled and

automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning,

automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84,

pp. 127–190.SMITH, M. C. and FUCETOLA, R. (1995) Effects of delayed visual

feedback on handwriting in Parkinson’s disease [Effekte verzoe-

gerten visuellen Feedbacks auf die Handschrift von Parkinson-

Kranken]. Human Movement Science, 14, pp. 109–123.SMYTH, M. M. and SILVERS, G. (1987) Functions of vision in the

control of handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 65, pp. 47–64.

154 Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting assessment

r UKLA 2008

Page 11: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and

TANKLE, R. S. and HEILMAN, K. M. (1983) Mirror writing in right-handers and in left-handers. Brain and Language, 19, pp. 115–123.

TEULINGS, H. L. and VAN GEMMERT, A. W. (2003) ‘Goal-directedmovements in menu selection in computer–user-interfaces’, in H.L. Teulings and A. W. Van Gemmert (Eds.) Proceedings of the 11thConference of the International Graphonomics Society. Scottsdale, AZ:IGS, pp. 99–102.

TEULINGS, H.-L. (1996) ‘Handwriting movement control’, in H.Heuer and S. W. Keele (Eds.) Handbook of Perception and Action.Volume 2: Motor Skills. London: Academic Press, pp. 561–613.

THOMASSEN, A. J. W. M. and VAN GALEN, G. P. (1992) ‘Hand-writing as a motor task: experimentation, modelling, and simula-tion’, in J. J. Summers (Ed.) Approaches to the Study of Motor Controland Learning. Amsterdam: North-Holland, Misc, pp. 113–144.

TUCHA, L., TUCHA, O., WALITZA, S., KAUNZINGER, I. andLANGE, K. W. (2007) Movement execution during neat hand-writing. Handwriting Today, 6, pp. 44–48.

TUCHA, O., ASCHENBRENNER, S., EICHHAMMER, P., PUTZ-HAMMER, A., SARTOR, H., KLEIN, H. E. and LANGE, K. W.(2002) The impact of tricyclic antidepressants and selectiveserotonin re-uptake inhibitors on handwriting movements ofpatients with depression. Psychopharmacology, 159, pp. 211–215.

TUCHA, O., ASCHENBRENNER, S. and LANGE, K. W. (2000)Mirror writing and handedness. Brain and Language, 73, pp. 432–441.

TUCHA, O. and LANGE, K. W. (2001) Effects of methylphenidate onkinematic aspects of handwriting in hyperactive boys. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 29, pp. 351–356.

TUCHA, O. and LANGE, K. W. (2004a) Effects of nicotine chewinggum on a real-life motor task: a kinematic analysis of handwritingmovements in smokers and non-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 173,pp. 49–56.

TUCHA, O. and LANGE, K. W. (2004b) Handwriting in attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder. Motor Control, 8, pp. 461–471.

TUCHA, O. and LANGE, K. W. (2005) The effect of conscious controlon handwriting in children with attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, pp. 323–332.

TUCHA, O., MECKLINGER, L., THOME, J., REITER, A., ALDERS,G. L., SARTOR, H., NAUMANN, M. and LANGE, K. W. (2006a)Kinematic analysis of dopaminergic effects on skilled handwritingmovements in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neural Transmission,113, pp. 609–623.

TUCHA, O., TRUMPP, C. and LANGE, K. (2004) Writing words andnon-words to dictation. Brain and Language, 91, pp. 267–273.

TUCHA, O., WALITZA, S., MECKLINGER, L., STASIK, D.,SONTAG, T. A. and LANGE, K. W. (2006b) The effect of caffeine

on handwriting movements in skilled writers. Human MovementScience, 25, pp. 523–535.

VAN DOORN, R. R. and KEUSS, P. J. (1992) The role of vision in thetemporal and spatial control of handwriting. Acta Psychologica, 81,pp. 269–286.

VAN DOORN, R. R. and KEUSS, P. J. (1993) Does the production ofletter strokes in handwriting benefit from vision? Acta Psychologica,82, pp. 275–290.

VAN GALEN, G. P., PORTIER, S. J., SMITS-ENGELSMAN, B. C. M.and SCHOMAKER, L. R. B. (1993) Neuromotor noise and poorhandwriting in children. Acta Psychologica, 82, pp. 161–178.

VAN GALEN, G. P., SMYTH, M. M., MEULENBROEK, R. G. J. andHYLKEMA, H. (1989) ‘The role of the short-term memory and themotor buffer in handwriting under visual and non-visualguidance’, in R. Plamondon, C. Y. Suen and M. L. Simner (Eds.)Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting.Singapore: World Scientific Publication Co., pp. 253–271.

VAN GALEN, G. P., TEULINGS, H. L. and SANDERS, J. (1994) ‘Onthe interdependence of motor programming and feedbackprocessing in handwriting’, in C. Faure, P. Keuss, G. Lorette andA. Vinter (Eds.) Advances in Handwriting and Drawing. A Multi-disciplinary Approach. Paris: Telecom, pp. 403–419.

VAN ZOMEREN, A. H. and BROUWER, W. H. (1994) ClinicalNeuropsychology of Attention. New York: Oxford University Press.

WHALEN, C. K., HENKER, B. and FINCK, D. (1981) Medicationeffects in the classroom: three naturalistic indicators. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 9, pp. 419–433.

CONTACT THE AUTHORS:Prof. Oliver Tucha, School of Psychology,University of Plymouth, Plymouth, Devon PL48AA, UK.e-mail: [email protected]. Klaus W. Lange, Department ofExperimental Psychology, University ofRegensburg, Germany.e-mail: [email protected]

Literacy Volume 42 Number 3 November 2008 155

r UKLA 2008

Page 12: Graphonomics, automaticity and handwriting … handwriting analysis and the findings of grapho-nomic research about handwriting automaticity. ... 148 Graphonomics, automaticity and