. at... _..§3 .6. x I... .1 2.717;.«13? I L 1 - “flaw“... : 5 . a ..:...1....:.; am .31. «W . 7 _. . 1‘31. 2:...«511x 3.. n. .. : ; amp”. ...dn.i.mm.. fiflimmfl L. .. . “a“??vhrgfiififiafi. . . 5 h ’71 .27)....1.‘ ‘99,. . . #9... . 2.3:... .2... 1,533.. I , ‘5 A .. Figs... x J... :7 .dria. . 7: 1r}... . «3.15.2. _ nine... .3 gag. .. 3 5s 3-2.7....va 251.1. . 9 .: 77;...11 In. . 1:! b. 2. $35.; . I 13:5 I.‘ 11...... :7 1 V17: 33.: LL ;: t. .~ r .. . . EV . . . $349.3: u" 1?. .fifl mmm§f4km 11§|\..Vn3|rei $0....) . \..K. 1!. .1: i... it): . . . .. nitmwaalunhxssflaaagi\§u . . at): :11. .r;‘¥l\s§.‘ 1.3.7 . . . . . .fl.9§v§1§t¥.fil~1§.i&. .i.‘ an .. ¢~lietl$ltunasibkh s a . . :3 l5. nun: . .gbqlihfllnflpflflrz. s. . tn .qu xvi . ,l} u . . . v a) 1.52») h 4.5;...5 ti it’l‘sgun .t. ...l.|.£.\>... $93!; .5 .. sshflr 1.12.515: . :5...) .vxygztx .A‘g‘t) g . . I . .55.. 0.311.515. al.9139152,... h. 1%.; .3)! . . 3.5. u t .oflnfiuagfisfirglxgv‘fi . $5... {I I... _ . , . ......r\.... 19; {a}... 13.53.)... gliduii.;n ‘5 . . wait; 1;: £131.21. tiigzvlu 1 . . 1...... .t It.“ . Y. hytlkl..{3ts=s .5 . :1. 5. Latin... N uh...» . “7.3.3. . . .. . . . . tbflfis. gauze... . nauglohui I}... . . . .: «vs >\..I1h..sx :xl. ‘2‘...)llxt‘.‘ Iaubazg Jahtilxiyh 5.251;...{5i 3:. .. .(‘I 3.4:..321 its ififlahr: a; ti .2! 3...zx.3li.hi. 52.21. )- Il.v. . gag it! $382 El 31 5 if . . ... , . v . . El ‘32:...) 3 .33..»33. .- 5362. 15...... g .:.z...£.;.-. 59.x... {Hahnflnfi‘Xbfidrsfw . .. .. $.21. . . .,$....n..i.. .. . . _ ... . . e. .. 1.5335, ; 3:3: , ..........§..§.€n.. \ #3....fifsr11171?! .171: A P Oxniltiyllh .1152u15 .. I:~‘..l...(t:'vq .IM fill-.22 2)) . . . than... 55:... .. .1: a 2:..- 12.. .... 231...... fizz... 2:... 2.22:? d... : 1.2.2:... .21.. :5... . Minii§!zsihi . I’sit‘l’ilthl-l . 12 3:315:13... ..).a...z....2_yk.uvtlzntzuulu . . 9... .5 z; i z 2..-..3125Hhuusfia. a: . . lot-z. Vi 2:53.»..-3252 . . . «Efigfizflfifigliil: . . -2 . . a t. {it}... . a...».:..... s :51.ln.|...3..1+3z;..‘v \951!%§Z§E. .uéi‘i n v 0”! ‘5! . .A’I, t!!’i:\’l¢a\.i\"s§’§vfi . . 9} ..\Il - .3. .7: in}: .1 5......‘1filglvh‘si: :..v.5v . a 1.7.... atzzvltixxlixvz.2||9fitlttn§ h: Elli; .. . 1.1 2......5! ba~$§\s;.|bn>aa~«s.3...‘I‘.xsls\t(r.$§t\sliuihl..|ntsl.u:11 . . I . . . .1.‘....\1\1.\}.f\( i192! . A n. .W... )J.. .. . AIN‘TIJ~HV.‘.r-.> .a: 3:12.521. 5. . . C . A. 4 It} . 4..«..../¢.xp..i.i4:f_.%c 5:? . l . , . . . . .... . . .Jfl. M, .59. .1 .2 . .. x 3.. Guava? Cr 3.4.53... ._ .1 :3... w 1. .w . 1V. . . . . . . .. “la“. «a. . . . . .. . bun... Snub... . dazflfiuflfihvgrtl « .tflfluu .11. «H636 Wm We“ ge'lltfihveflnfiflny a This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF MANUSCRIPT AND CURSIVE HANDWRITING ON DECODING AND ENCODING SKILLS OF 40 THIRD GRA‘BE STUDENTS presene y Thomas Henry LaHaie has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D.(kgwem Administration and Curriculum %% @W¢\ / / Major professor Dme November 5, 1982 \ "(Flinn-10‘ .o.‘ A - r1 IA’ . r - - 0.12771 MSU LIBRARIES v RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF MANUSCRIPT AND CURSIVE HANDWRITING ON DECODING AND ENCODING SKILLS OF 40 THIRD GRADE STUDENTS BY Thomas Henry LaHaie A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 ABSTRACT BY Thomas Henry LaHaie This study was concerned with the effects of manu- script and cursive handwriting formats on specific decod- ing and encoding skills of 40 third grade students enter- ing fourth grade. The subjects were divided into below average and above average reading achievement groups based on teacher judgment which was verified with an informal word pronunciation test and oral reading of graded para- graphs. Subjects were tested for dominant visualization for- mat of words. They identified letters in lower case cur- sive and manuscript formats. Students pronounced matched word lists presented in typed, manuscript, and cursive formats. Students read matched paragraphs, at first grade reading difficulty, in typed, manuscript, and cursive- formats. They encoded the lower case alphabet and eight words in manuscript and cursive formats. Subjects indi- cated a preference for reading and handwriting in either manuscript or cursive formats. Thomas Henry LaHaie A repeated measures analysis of variance and other measures of significance lead to the following conclu- sions. The predominant format for visualization of words by both groups is lower case manuscript. Above average students can readily identify lower case cursive letters, but below average reading achievement students exhibit varied abilities with some students having considerable difficulty in cursive letter identification. Both groups can identify cursive letter errors in manuscript format and have no difficulty with letter recognition of lower case manuscript letters. Both groups pronounce matched word lists more slowly in cursive format than in manuscript format. The cursive word format was not found to be a greater detriment for the below average than the above average reading achievement students. Both groups read handwritten cursive paragraphs more slowly than typed or handwritten manuscript paragraphs. The cursive paragraph format was not found to be a greater detriment for the below average than the above average reading achievement students. Encoding in cursive format is slower than encoding in manuscript for both groups. For several students in both groups, cursive encoding is significantly slower than manu- script encoding. A few students experience serious Thomas Henry LaHaie difficulty with cursive handwriting, taking nearly twice as long to encode when compared to manuscript handwriting. Student preferences for reading and handwriting manuscript and cursive formats are varied and were not found to be significantly different. A scholar, DEDICATION a gentle man, and a friend, Dr. George Sherman ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation for their guidance to my commit— tee members, Drs. George Sherman, James Snoddy, Donald Nickerson,Ben Bohnhorst, and John Lopis. Gratitude for the inspiration given to me by Drs. William Durr, Byron VanRoekel, Gerry Duffy, Lois Bader, Patricia Cianciolo, Sheila Fitzgerald, and Jean LePere. Judy Hancock, Jan Vredevoogd, Martha Meaders, and Barbara Reeves were most helpful in the preparation of the dissertation, and I am appreciative for their expertise and efforts. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . ... . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Statement of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms in the Study . . CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Development and Contemporary VieWpoints . . . . . . . . Nature of the Controversy and Need for Research . . . . . . . . . . . Primary Sources: Nature of Manuscript and Cursive Arguments . . . . Secondary Sources: Chronological Review of Significant Opinions Summary of Literature Review . . . . . . CHAPTER III: HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY . Introduction .p. . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of Subjects . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis One . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Three . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Four . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Five . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Six . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Seven . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Eight . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Nine . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Eleven . . . . . . Computer Processing and Statistical Analysis Limiting Conditions and Assumptions . . iv l7 17 18 22 28 44 52 54 54 54 56 57 59 60 61 62 63 63 64 64 64 65 66 CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 HypOthesis One, Visualization . . . . . . . . . 69 Hypothesis Two, Letter Identification . . . . . . 70 Hypothesis Three, Word Pronunciation . . . . . . . 70 Hypothesis Four, Pronunciation Differential Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Hypothesis Five, Oral Paragraph Reading . . . . . 72 Hypothesis Six, Oral Paragraph Reading Differential Effect . . . . . . . . . . 75 Hypothesis Seven, Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Hypothesis Eight, Encoding Differential Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Hypotheses Nine, Ten, and Eleven, Reading and Handwriting Preferences . . . . . . . . 78 Table of Correlation Coefficients . . . . . . . . 80 Individual Performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Chapter Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 83 CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 APPENDIX A: SUBJECT DATA INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . 94 APPENDIX B: PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEN SELECTED VARIABLES . . . . . . . . . . 98 APPENDIX C: MATCHED WORD LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 APPENDIX D: GRADED PARAGRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 APPENDIX E: HANDWRITING EXAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 LIST OF FIGURES Mean Scores: Word Pronunciation, Hypotheses Three and Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Mean Scores: Paragraph Reading, Hypotheses Five and Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Mean Scores: Encoding, Hypohteses Seven and Eight 0 O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 79 Vi CHAPTER I DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM Introduction There are many possible factors which contribute to delayed progress in learning to read. Learning to read is a complex process requiring several perceptual and cogni- tive tasks. Some of the tasks are subjective in nature in that they are dependent upon factors unique to the indivi- dual and are frequently classified as physiological, psychological, linguistic, educational, and socioeconomic influences. Other tasks are objective in nature in that they relate to the scope and sequence of,inStruction that the child receives while learning to read. These tasks include phonics skills, structural analysis of words, recognition of high frequency words, the ability to read words in phrases with appropriate response to punctuation as well as reliance upon syntactic and semantic contextual information. Because of the complexity involved in learn- ing to read, progress in reading achievement in the pri- mary grades is varied with students learning at different rates. At the end of third grade, some students are consid- ered to have below-average reading achievement because they have not acquired adequate proficiency in the decoding skills of word analysis and word recognition which facili- tate fluent reading. One explanation for this delayed progress in learning to read may be related to the visual perception tasks which require accurate recognition and use of the graphic symbol system. The visual perception tasks of letter and word recognition required to decode and encode the manuscript and cursive symbol systems are the primary interest of this thesis. From preschool until second grade, students normally learn to read and handwrite using an unjoined manuscript letter symbol system. During the second or third grade, a joined cursive letter symbol system is usually taught to these students. This transition to a somewhat different visual symbol system occurs at a sensitive time in the process of learning to read. It may confound some stu- dents who have inadequacies in word analysis and word recognition skills and may either delay or retard decoding and encoding achievement. These students have not acquired a relative degree of mastery in decoding and en- coding skills in the manuscript format, and the tasks' which they are attempting may be made more difficult as a result of this transition to and use of a second symbol system. This study will examine the relationships of manu- script and cursive handwriting to decoding and encoding skills of 40 students entering fourth grade who have below average and above average reading achievement levels. More specifically, it will investigate how students visualize words and how manuscript and cursive handwriting affect the decoding skills of letter recognition, word pronunciation, and oral reading of paragraphs. It will also investigate student abilities to encode letters and words in manuscript and cursive handwriting formats. A part of the study will be concerned with student preferences for reading and hand- writing the two symbol systems. The remainder of this chapter includes a general definition of the thesis problem. It will begin with a background description of the scepe and sequence of read; ing and handwriting skills from preschOOl through the primary grades. The focusof the study, which involves the nature of the controversy of using two symbol systems, will be stated. The purposes and goals will be described and related to the hypotheses which will be tested. The hypotheses will be stated, and terms used in the study will be defined. The chapter will conclude with an oute line of the remaining chapters in this thesis. Background A major component in the reading process is the ability to decode the Symbol system used to record written language. This decoding ability includes the visual per- ception task which requires recognition of graphic stimuli and subsequent response which may include corresponding auditory response. The sounds of letters, syllables, and words are associated with their visual representations. Simply stated, decoding is the recognition of the link between the written words and spoken words. Successful reading and handwriting are both predi- cated, in part, on accurate visual perception of the graphic symbol system consisting of letters and words. The first step in the reading process is the ability to decode the symbol system. The first step in the hand- writing process is the ability to encode the symbol sys- tem. Research by Tinker, Hildreth, and others indicates that there is a positive correlation between legibility and the degree to which letters and words of the symbol system have distinctive features_which resemble the print used in machine printed materials. In his classic work, Legibilityyof Print (1963), Tinker discusses the nature of legibility and the reading process Legibility, then, is concerned with perceiv- ing letters and words, and with the reading of continuous textual material. The shapes of let- ters must be discriminated, the characteristic word forms perceived, and continuous text read accurately, rapidly, easily, and with understand- ing . . . . In other words, legibility deals with the coordination of those typographical factors inherent in letters and other symbols, words, and connected textual material which af- fect ease and speed of reading (p. 7). Hildreth (1960) applies this same concept of legi- bility to handwriting systems. All perception studies show that the farther hand-written letter forms depart from the verti- cal the less legible they become. Joining the letters, increasing the slant, elongation of the letters, and added loops all decrease legibility, because legibility is directly proportionate to the degree of similarity between machine printed type-face and handwriting style . . . . To the extent that word forms in handwriting deviate from machine printed words, the words are less legible (p. 5). It is reasonable 1x3 question that manuscript and cursive symbol systems may have different degrees of legi- bility and that children confronted with decoding and en- coding the two systems may have varying degrees of success with these tasks due to legibility differences. Until children reach the second or third grade, they usually de- code and encode only the manuscript symbol system. Their progress in learning to decode and encode is varied with some students learning faster than others. In the second or third grade, students normally are introduced to the cursive symbol system. This system re- sembles the print used in machine printed materials to a lesser degree than does the manuScript system. It may prove to be less legible in that the beginning reader will require more time to decode letters and words as well as increase their error rate in letter recognition and word pronunciation. The use of the cursive system for encoding taSks may also retard the child's performance on decoding tasks. A description of the scope and sequence of decoding and encoding skills from preschool through third grade should provide additional insight into the problem and purpose of this study. Thefollowing description of this developmental sequence is baSed on this writer's 10 years of teaching experience in the primary grades. This ex- perience includes Seven years as a first grade teacher and five years as teacher/supervisor in remedial reading clin- ics sponsored by Michigan State University. The scope and sequence of reading and handwriting skills are highly similar to the reading process in preschool years and the primary grades as described by Durkin (1966, 1970, 1980). Preschool children begin their efforts to read and. handwrite using upper case letters of the manuscript alpha- bet. These letters are used in television and other ad- vertisements. Children copy their names, words such as MOM, DAD, LOVE, SANTA CLAUS, and other meaningful words which they have seen and want to handwrite. During the half day sessions of kindergarten, a major part of the curriculum is concerned with readiness skills for learning to read and handwrite. Students learn the names and sounds of letters and practice writing them. At the end Of the year, these five and six year old students become first graders who go to school all day and who are expected to learn to read and handwrite before advancing to second grade. Most students are relatively successful in learning to read, handwrite, and spell while in first grade. They begin to read from books and materials which have large print similar to the manuscript writing system that they are learning to handwrite. At the end of first grade, they know all of the letters of the alphabet, can recognize many high frequency words, can sound out words using phonics skill, are aware of word expansion techniques, use punctua- tion signals, and can read groups of words and phrases with a degree of fluency comparable to their spoken language. They are capable of copying and handwriting words and sen- tences using manuscript letters. This reading and handwriting instruction is mutually reinforcing and allows the transfer and use of similar skills in each of the language processes. Students read their own handwriting and writing that has been done by others. Their handwriting experiences are opportuni— ties to understand similarities and differences in words which helps in the areas of word recognition, expansion of sight vocabulary, and development of accuracy in spelling. In general, students entering second grade are unable to read or handwrite the cursive alphabet system. During the second grade and third grade years, stu- dents continue to develOp reading skills and are expected to read much greater quantities of material than during their first grade experience. They continue to practice their handwriting skills using manuscript letters for spelling and writing assignments. It is at this sensitive developmental stage in the sequence of beginning reading and handwriting learning that the cursive symbol system is added. A.transition is made from the previously used manuscript alphabet to the cursive alphabet. The use of two symbol formats, manuscript and cursive, and their effect on decoding and encoding skills is the genesis of the problem of the thesis. Statement of the Problem The problem of this study can be stated in the form of a central question: does the use of two graphic symbol systems confound visual perception tasks required to decode and encode letters and words which are initial steps in learning to read and handwrite? When the cursive system is introduced at the second or third grade level, students are now confronted with the visual perception tasks of recognizing not only 52 new let- ters with different, distinctive features, but also words which are visually different from their manuscript and machine printed appearances. They are expected to learn to read cursive handwriting successfully in a few months with limited instruction. They begin to practice spelling assignments using the cursive alphabet and are expected to use cursive handwriting in their compositions and to reduce the use of the manuscript style. Students may be confused by and have difficulty with letter recognition of the cursive alphabet. They may have difficulty with the pronunciation of high frequency words when presented in cursive format. They may experience 9 difficulty in reading material which is written in cursive handwriting. The transition to the cursive handwriting system may confuse them in their abilities to encode let- ters and words. There may be a differential effect which indicates that tasks involving cursive symbols in decoding and encoding present a more difficult learning task for the below average reader than the above average reader. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to investigate the rela- tionships of manuscript and cursive handwriting to decoding and encoding skills of third grade students entering fourth grade and having different reading achievement levels. The investigation will test hypotheses developed from the fol- lowing questions. In what format do students visualize words? Can stu- dents identify letters in manuscript format which they have incorrectly identified in cursive format? How do student abilities differ in the pronunciation of matched words in manuscript and cursive formats? How do student abilities differ in the encoding of letters and words in manuscript and cursive formats? Does a differential effect operate in the use of the cursive symbol system to the greater detri- ment of the below average readers? What are student pre- ferences for the reading and handwriting of the two symbol systems? 10 Statement of Hypotheses Hypothesis One BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE WILL VISUALIZE WORDS IN LOWER CASE MANUSCRIPT. Hypothesis Two BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE WILL CORRECTLY IDENTIFY LETTERS IN MANUSCRIPT FORMAT THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED INCORRECTLY IN CURSIVE FORMAT. Hypothesis Three BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE WILL PRONOUNCE MATCHED WORD LISTS MORE SLOWLY IN CURSIVE FORMAT THAN IN MANUSCRIPT FORMAT. Hypothesis Four THERE WILL BE A RATE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE IN THEIR ABILITIES TO PRONOUNCE MATCHED WORDS IN CURSIVE AND MANUSCRIPT FORMATS. ll Hypothesis Five BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE WILL DECODE MATCHED PARA- GRAPHS MORE SLOWLY IN CURSIVE FORMAT THAN IN MANUSCRIPT FORMAT. Hypothesis Six THERE WILL BE.A RATE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE IN THEIR ABILITIES TO DECODE MATCHED PARA- GRAPHS IN CURSIVE AND MANUSCRIPT FORMATS. Hypothesis Seven BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE WILL ENCODE LETTERS AND WORDS MORE SLOWLY IN CURSIVE THAN IN MANUSCRIPT FORMAT. Hypothesis Eight THERE WILL BE A RATE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE IN THEIR ABILITY TO ENCODE LETTERS AND WORDS IN CURSIVE AND MANUSCRIPT FORMATS. Hyppthesis Nine BELOW AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE WILL REPORT IT IS EASIER TO READ MANUSCRIPT THAN CURSIVE HANDWRITING. 12 Hypothesis Ten BELOW AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE WILL REPORT IT IS EASIER TO HANDWRITE USING MANUSCRIPT RATHER THAN CURSIVE HANDWRITING. Hypothesis Eleven ABOVE AVERAGE READING ACHIEVEMENT STUDENTS ENTERING FOURTH GRADE WILL REPORT IT IS EASIER TO HANDWRITE USING CURSIVE RATHER THAN MANUSCRIPT HANDWRITING. In summary, the use of different handwriting systems is a source Ochntroversy among educators because of sus- pected difficulties which are cOnfronted by students who are learning to read, handwrite, and spell. It also is alleged that there is a high degree of illegibility of students' handwriting in the upper grades and adults' handwriting which is frequently a composite Of various symbol systems. The difficulties in learning to read and handwrite may be partially the result Of the teaching Of two handwriting systems. There is a need to investigate this situatiOn in an attempt to find answers to several questions which may facilitate learning to read, hand- write, and spell and improve the legibility Of handwritten communications within the schools and in other circum- stances in which legible handwriting is important. An im- portant outcome of the study will be to suggest additional related questions and theoretical concepts which might be 13 reSearched in the continuing effort to improve reading and handwriting instruction. Thesis Outline Chapter I has been concerned with a general defini- tion of the problem Of this dissertation and includes a definition Of key words used in the study. Chapter II will be a review Of precedent literature and will establish a rationale for the development Of the hypotheses. Primary sources, related to the construction Of the hypotheses, will be reported and critiqued. Se- condary sources, related to the dual system controversy, will be chronologically reviewed. Chapter III will be devoted to the statement Of the hypOtheses. It will include a description of the subject population and rationale for group selection. There will be a statement concerning limitations and assumptions per- tinent to the thesis. There will be a description of the instruments used to measure subject performance and a scepe and sequence Of tasks to be performed by the subjects. Methods Of preliminary data recording and the use Of com- puter processing will be explained. Chapter IV will be an analysis Of data to test the hypotheses and will include a description Of the statis- tical techniques used in the analysis Of the data. The methodology is based on a correlational design which in- vestigates the interaction effects among the variables in 14 the hypotheses. A repeated measures analysis Of variance will be used to determine if there is a statistically sig- nificant interaction present in the data concerned with typed, manuscript, and cursive formats Of the two differ- ent subject groups for word pronunciation, paragraph read- ing, and encoding tasks. The chi square test Of signifi- cance will be applied to determine if a significant dif- ference is present in the data concerning reading and handwriting preferences of the two groups. Correlation coefficients will be Obtained to quantify the extent to which the variables are related. Chapter V will be the conclusion Of the study with recommendations for additional research related to this diSsertation. Appendices and bibliographic information will follow the final chapter. Definition of Terms in the Study Manuscript: an alphabet style in which letters are made mostly with straight lines and circles and are un- joined when writing words. Cursive: an alphabet style in which letters are made mostly with curved lines, loops, and circles which are joined when writing words. Lower case: the smaller letters of an alphabet some- times referred tO as minuscules. Upper case: the larger letters Of an alphabet some— times referred to as capital letters or majuscules. 1.5 Visualization: how letters and words are perceived mentally in their graphic form; the process of stimulus recall which involves mental perception of images; how letters and words are seen behind the eyes. Letter identification: the task of responding with the name Of a letter when presented with the stimulus of its graphic representation. Word lists: isolated words arranged in vertical columns that are pronounced by an individual to assess knowledge Of high frequency words and decoding skills. High frequency words: words which occur most Often in various kinds of reading material. Pronunciation: the task Of saying a word when pre- sented with the stimulus Of its graphic representation. Oral reading: the task of saying aloud words and phrases which make up sentences and text of various kinds of reading material. Graded paragraphs: paragraphs written at various grade levels with contrOlled vocabularies and sentence length. §pg§d: the time required tO perform a task; in this study, time was measured in seconds for performance of decoding and encoding tasks. Accuracy: the degree tO which a task is performed correctly; in this study, the tasks were to identify let- ters, to pronounce words, and to encode letters and words. 16 Decoding: associating graphic stimuli with a corre- sponding auditory response. Legibility: the rate, measured in time and accuracy, Of decoding graphic material. Encoding: the visual mOtor task of handwriting -graphic symbols. Below average: an arbitrary grouping which indicates performance in the lower one-third achievement range. Above average: an arbitrary grouping which indicates performance in the upper one-third achievement range. Preference: an indication that one type for format is more desirable than an alternative format. Syppol: a graphic representation with which a mean- ing is associated. Format: the style Ofaigraphic representation such as typewritten, cursive, or manuscript. Handwriting: the visual motor task Of encoding let- ters and words. Differential: a form of measurement which indicates that performance on a task is higher or lower than a pre- dicted expectation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to review precedent re- search and opinion based on experience to provide a his- torical background and a rationale for the development and formulation of the hypotheses Of this study. The litera- ture was identified through an ERIC computer search and manual searches Of Dissertation Abstracts. Extensive bibliographies from key studies and articles also provided pertinent reference material (Voorhis, 1931; MonrOe, 1952; Harris, 1958; Hildreth, 1960; Anderson, 1965; Otto, 1969; Peck, 1980). The review will begin with an examination Of the his- torical background which led to the evolution of the two handwriting systems and contemporary viewpoints concerning the incidence and use Of manuscript and cursive writing in the schools and adult life. Primary sources, consisting Of research related to the controversy Of use of manuscript and cursive writing and articles having seminal ideas and opinions related to previous research and this study will be thoroughly reported and critiqued. Secondary sources, consisting primarily of articles in which Opinions are 17 18 stated concerning the use Of the two handwriting systems will be chronologically reviewed. These sources have a less direct bearing on the nature Of this study but are relevant in that they provide additional insight into the nature of the problem, its development, and the content of the primary sources. This review of the historical background and the pri- mary and secondary sources will Conclude with some specific questions that are the concern of this study. These ques- tions will provide the basis for the articulation of the hypotheses which are to be tested. The hypotheses and the means of testing them for accuracy will be the content Of Chapter III. Historical Development and Contemporary Viewpoints The renowned calligrapher Alfred Fairbank (1970, 1975, 1977) thoroughly discussed the evolution of the various styles of handwriting in his several works. Along with extensive bibliographies, he presented photographs and facsimilies from ancient Greek and Roman eras to contem- porary times to demonstrate the evolution of handwriting styles. During the first five centuries A.D., only upper case, capital letters were used in handwriting. A later develop- ment was the use of lower case letters. Fairbank dates the use Of lower case letters to the early part of the sixth century. For the most part, handwritingyduring the first 19 15 centuries consisted Of the use Of manuscript type let- tering. Various styles of unjoined script were used, and some such as the Gothic were quite difficult to write and read. Fairbank also gave a few examples Of joined cursive script which appeared as early as the sixth century. He attributed the use of cursive from the 15th to the 22th centuries to the use of copper plates for certain types Of reading materials. Strokes were joined to facilitate alignment and spacing which were difficult tO consistently reproduce using unjoined strokes and the manuscript alpha— bet. Fairbank's preference for a writing style was an italic cursive, similar to styles used in the 15th and 12th centuries. Italic cursive joined manuscript letters and was highly similar to the modern D'Nealian alphabet in its transitional stage between unjoined, slanted manuscript letters and joined cursive script which was like the cur- sive styles Of many other commercial cursive alphabets. Fairbank (1975) said the "child needs a simple but practical and interesting system" (p. 13). He wrote that "legibility is Obviously the first essential virtue of handwriting" (p. 20). He believed that letters should have "simple, distinctive, and proportioned form" with no un- necessary parts that may be the "cause of confusion" (p. 21). Print-script, he asserted, is of "assistance in teaching both reading and writing, since one alphabet serves two purposes" (p. 26). 20 Edward Johnston was credited by Fairbank (1977) with the introduction of manuscript into schools in England. Johnson (1906) suggested an "ideal course" for children's penmanship. Soon after London schools began experimenting . . . and printscript, consisting Of letters made of straight lines, circles, and parts of circles, and having some relationship to Johnston‘s skele— ton letters, began tO replace the hands Of the COpperplate tradition in the infant's schools (p. 25). Teachers were enthusiastic about this new handwriting sys- tem because there "was a seeming economy in having to learn but one alphabet for both reading and writing, and enthusi- asm was felt for the simplicity Of the system" (p. 25). According to Keim (1931), prior to the 1920s there was only one school in the United States that taught manuscript writing. This new style of handwriting was introduced in the United States by Marjorie Wise. In 1921 she taught courses in this style of writing at Teachers College, Columbia University. Keim agreed with Wise that manuscript was "more legible than cursive, that less time is consumed in teaching beginning reading and writing when a similar alphabet is used for both, and that manuscript is easier to acquire" (p. 125). Wise (1924), Hill (1924), and Kimmins (1924), along with Keim, contended that manuscript was a revival Of the original handwriting from which present print and handwriting forms have evolved. Keim stated that, 10 years after its introduction into American schools, there was an "experimental attitude 21 toward manuscript writing" and that its use was "confined to schools that are free to experiment in education" (p. 126). Freeman and Polkinghorne conducted separate surveys in 1946 to determine the incidence of use of manuscript and cursive writing in schools throughout the United States. Freeman (1946) included respondents from several states and 727 school systems in his survey. He reported that 84% of the cities of the country used manuscript writing in the first and second grades. Polkinghorne (1946) included private schools and teacher—training institutions in her survey. Her report included 180 respondents from 44 states. She reported that almost 90% of the schools used manuscript writing for beginning instruction and that 66% of the schools shifted from manuscript to cursive writing in the third grade. Another survey was conducted by Herrick (1963). His extensive survey of over 600 school systems found nearly 80% teaching both manuscript and cursive handwriting. Seventy percent of the respondents made the transition from manuscript to cursive somewhere between the last half of the second grade and the first half of fourth grade. In general, most commercial handwriting systems recommend transition at the mid point of second grade and publish transitional materials for the second grade level. 22 Nature of the Controversy and Need for Research Anderson (1965) reported that "the manuscript-cursive controversy for the most part has centered around the fol— lowing factors: (1) legibility, (2) speed, and (3) ease of learning" (p. 116). It was his opinion that most evidence . . . would indicate that manuscript is more legible than cursive, that it can be written as fast or possibly faster than cursive, that it can be learned more easily by both children and adults than cursive (p. 119). Of similar opinions were Hildreth (1960) and Templin (1964). Hildreth stated that cursive writing was a "mani- fest source of waste" which should be eliminated. Templin argued in favor of manuscript writing and against cursive stating that "such duality of learning and performance" (p. 386) does not exist in other areas of the curriculum. She also believed that there were many indications that the transition from the manuscript to the cursive styles of handwriting at any age or at any grade level tended to re- sult in less legible adult handwriting. Templin's concern about the illegibility of adult handwriting echoed a study done by Newland (1932). He con- cluded that, based on his analysis of over 2000 writing samples of children and adults, illegibilities tended to increase with age. "It is interesting to note," Newland wrote, "that the adults wrote more than three times more illegibly than did the elementary school children" (p. 254). 23 O'Brien (1959) commented on the economic waste result- ing from the dual system. Illegibility in the use of cur- sive writing caused millions of letters and other mail to remain undelivered by the postal service. Nearly 400,000 tax returns are delayed each year because Of illegible pre- paration. "Commercial errors due to illegible penmanship (cost business) approximately a million dollars a week" (p. 8). O'Brien cited reform in the Philadelphia public schools. The Philadelphia Simplified Alphabet eliminated "fancy capital letters" and all "unnecessary and poten- tially misleading scrollwork" and other elements character- istic Of cursive alphabets. Bell (1968) suggested that manuscript writing be used after the primary grades "since manuscript writing is a practical form of writing that can serve all writing needs" and "it may be used in connection with cursive writing, or it may be used exclusively" (p. 81). She contended that manuscript is easier for children who have poor coordina- tion and that "some teachers have found that children with major spelling problems improved when they changed from cursive tO manuscript" (p. 83). Groff (1960) also questioned the efficacy of changing from manuscript to cursive. His review of the literature found no research evidence available to suggest that chil- dren prefer cursive to manuscript or that use Of cursive resulted in improved quality of written composition. He stated that there was "substantial evidence" to refute 24 opinions that "cursive handwriting is easier to learn, easier to write, and that errors made in cursive are easier to correct" (p. 100). Groff believed that "none of the research evidence indicates that cursive handwriting is more legible than manuscript" (p. 100). Western (1977) also was of the opinion that there was a strong case against the use of cursive. Because of the difficulty of learning cursive and using this style of handwriting, he alleged that the quantity and quality of students' compositions were reduced. “Insistence on cur- sive script in the middle grades and later is simply inde— fensible. It displaces valuable activities and has no value of its own" (p. 3). King (1964) and Enstrom (1960, 1968) argued in separ- ate articles that cursive writing was preferred by children as a handwriting style and that it was also preferred by their parents as the type of writing which should be taught to their children. They agreed with Groff that cursive writing had a strong traditional reason for being taught. It was, according to these authors, "grown-up writing" and a "sign of growing up." During the past five years, this researcher has col— lected hundreds of handwriting samples from high school and college students, elementary and secondary school teachers, and other adults. Most of the samples are of cursive hand- writing but also included in the collection are many examples of manuscript handwriting. These individuals were 25 asked to handwrite material using both manuscript and our- sive formats. As a general Observation, it has been found that both styles can be written with comparable speed and ease. Legibility of the samples, however, favors manu- script writing. There is a great deal of variation in cur- sive styles and a great deal of similarity in manuscript styles. Informal testing also indicates that it is easier for most individuals to read manuscript samples than our- sive samples. Based on these observations, it would appear that reading material of a highly similar content is read more quickly and with fewer errors by adult readers if it is in manuscript rather than cursive handwriting format. Three major articles have appeared in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research on the general subject of handwrit- ing and each has an extensive bibliography.. West and Free- man (1941) wrote that "the lack of constructive basic re- search in the field of handwriting still continues" (p. 528). They reported that . . . greater rapidity and legibility of man- uscript writing and the greater volume of manu- script writing which is produced by children of the primary grades indicate that it is easier to learn than is cursive writing (p. 525). They stated that "children who use manuscript writing also learn to read more rapidly and are somewhat more accurate in spelling." As the main advantage of manuscript, they cited the "ease of learning and an aid to learning both reading and spelling" (p. 528). 26 Harris (1958) reported that "there is still need and opportunity for further basic research into those factors directly involved in the handwriting process" (p. 622). He cited the persistent issue of the role of manuscript writing and believed that the evidence supported this style as easier to learn, as being as fast as cursive, and more legible than cursive. He cautioned that "the very terms quality, legibility, and readability as applied to hand- writing tend to resist precise definition" (p. 621) and that satisfactory experimental evidence had not been pro— duced to resolve the question of the relative effective- ness of the two styles of handwriting, especially in terms of speed and its effect upon quality. Noting that this was a problem of international concern, Harris noted that "many countries have adopted simple forms of writing to help children overcome certain difficulties in the begin- ning stages of handwriting instruction" and that this "simplified form of writing is called variously script, print—script, or manuscript writing" (p. 616). Otto and Anderson (1969) confirm the now nearly- universal practice of manuscript writing in grades one and two with a transition to cursive writing in grade two or three. They believed that "no end to the manuscript- cursive discussion is in sight, but perhaps the scope of the discussion will be expanded" (p. 575). Several studies were reported and summarized in favor of the use of manu— script. 27 There may be little evidence to recommend a change from manuscript to cursive. The former seems to meet the writing needs of adults in terms of both speed and legibility and to be most de- fensible as a beginning style for children (p. 574). . Peck and others (1980) reported handwriting research done in the 19703 with critical comments and encouragement for further research. They noted that little research had been directed to the production and legibility of letter forms. More research is needed, they suggested, "to iden- tify what modifications in letter forms might be made to make them more legible as well as more easily learned by children" (p. 284). Also mentioned was a need for research to focus on the increase of cursive and manuscript hand- writing speed through the grades and the influence of speed on legibility. Concerning the issue of handwriting style in beginning instruction, which is still being debated, they stated that "studies need to be designed comparing the effect of both styles on the handwriting of learning disabled children" (p. 295). In evaluating the quality of research during the 1970s, Peck Observed that the research had been more focused on pertinent questions. She con- cluded, however, that the subject of handwriting and its relationship to the develOpment of the other language arts did not appear to have been thoroughly researched. 28 Primary Sources: Nature of Manuscript and Cursive Arguments The review of primary sources will begin with prece- dent research and opinion which favors the use of the manu- script system. The more limited literature which favors the use of the cursive system will follow the pro- manuscript arguments. Marjorie Wise is credited with the introduction of manuscript writing in the United States in 1921. Kimmins (1924) wrote in the introduction to Wise's book On the Technique of Manuscript Writing that manuscript can be written as rapidly as cursive by both boys and girls, ages 7 through 13, based on his research with several thousand children in London schools. Along with acceptable speed of production, Kimmins stated that manuscript "practically re— moves the disadvantage of two kinds of script with which the child had to content in learning to read and write" (p. 27). He also contended that manuscript was easy for "all children (and) there are no failures as in the case of cursive writing" (p. 27). Kimmins praised the legible na- ture of manuscript style and suggested that teachers were "practically unanimous" in their beliefs that manuscript results in improvement of spelling. If there were to be a transfer to cursive, Kimmins asserted that manuscript was an excellent basis for transition efforts. Within a decade of its introduction into the public school curriculum, Gates and Brown (1929) reported that the 29 use of manuscript writing had been considerably debated but not extensively investigated. Along with Voorhis (1931), they listed the following claims by the proponents of manu- script and the counter claims of the advocates of cursive writing which make up the nature of the debate and an agenda for possible research. In the 1930s proponents of manuscript writing made the following claims for this style of writing: 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. Manuscript is easier for the beginner to learn. Manuscript is more rhythmical to write. Manuscript satisfies the beginner's desire to write. Manuscript writing product is more satisfy— ing to the beginning writer. Manuscript is an individualistic as cursive. Manuscript is easier to write with less physical strain than cursive. Manuscript is easier to write with less eye strain than cursive. Manuscript can be written as rapidly as cursive. Manuscript is more legible than cursive. Manuscript is more pleasing to read. Manuscript contributes to the learning of spelling and reading. Manuscript contributes to the learning of spelling and composition. Manuscript removes the necessity of learning two alphabets, thereby reducing time and ef- fort. 3O 14. Manuscript letters form a basis for cursive writing if transition to cursive style is desired. 15. Manuscript has received the approval of business men in both England and America. Advocates of cursive writing denied many of the above claims for manuscript and made the following arguments for cursive writing. 1. Cursive is more rapid than manuscript. 2. Cursive writing may be difficult to read for children who have been taught manuscript writing. 3. Cursive writing promotes individuality in writing whereas manuscript tends toward a stereotyped letter form. 4. Cursive is more useful for personal, busi- ness, and social needs. 5. Cursive writing, rather than manuscript, is generally accepted in the business world. Nearly four decades later, Gray (1969) wrote that further research was needed before final conclusion could be reached. He also stated that the relative advantages of script and cursive writing have not been studied as exten- sively as they should. Plattor and Woestehoff (1967) indi- cated that their "review of the literature reveals a pau- city of research dealing with the reading of cursive letter symbols" (p. 50). Hildreth (1960) stated that studies of the relation of reading and writing provided a promising area for research. She contended that there is a need for research on elementary school handwriting: ". . . in this day of urgency in teaching literacy not only in America but 31 around the world, the whole area of handwriting instruction needs to be thoroughly explored" (p. 12). In their study, Gates and Brown (1929) examined the speed and legibility of student writing in grades one through six using their own data involving 44 first graders and Reeder's (1926) data involving 272 second through sixth graders. Their conclusions were indefinitely stated, and they suggested that "gaps found in the studies here re- ported, especially in grades two and three, should be filled" (p. 14). Their reported facts indicated little difference in speed of handwriting and legibility of pro- duct in all grades regardless of the use of either manu- script or cursive formats. The authors implied that, in their opinions, manuscript should be used in grades one through three and cursive should be used in grades four through six. They addressed the double alphabet issue by stating two reasons for not learning both that are advocated by proponents of each alphabet style. The first is that only one is needed and that learning the other would be a waste of time; the second that neither can or will be learned well when both are attempted, or, at the least, learning both makes the learning of either a more difficult task. Interference, conflict, disor- ganization, it has been said, frequently follow attempts to teach two such antagonistic skills (p. 11) In discussing cursive alphabets, the authors quoted two other researchers who "find evidence that there still re- main in typical cursive alphabets superfluous elements 32 which retard speed (and) some of these unnecessary letter formations also reduce legibility." Gates and Brown concluded with a recommendation for a "thoroughinvestigationof all forms of manuscript, print- script, and cursive writing for the purpose of determining the particular mertis of each" (p. 14). Perhaps by selecting the best elements from cursives and print—scripts, a writing alphabet may be discovered which, by combining the merits of the various existing rivals, will be superior to any one and make the learning of two alpha- bets unnecessary (p. 14). Gates and Brown investigated the ease of learning to write cursive and manuscript writing; and in a companion study, Voorhis (1931) was concerned with measuring the relative influence of cursive and manuscript writing on first grade reading. Approximately 190 students in first grade class— rooms participated in the study. Using the Gates Primary Reading Test which was administered at four intervals dur- ing the school year, student achievement in word recogni— tion; word, phrase, and sentence reading; and reading of directions was measured. One group of students had re- ceived writing instruction using the cursive style, and the other group had received writing instruction using manuscript style. The author matched groups according to ability and attempted to reduce the effect of "teacher personality." She concluded by stating that "all data from this investi— gation indicate that manuscript is distinctly superior to 33 cursive writing in the facilitation of beginning reading" (p. 51). Based on her extensive review of the literature, she also wrote that manuscript was found to be signifi- cantly more legible than cursive, was more pleasing to read, appeared to be as rapid as cursive, and facilitated learning to read and spell. Turner (1930) conducted a study in which she read handwriting samples from students in grades two through six. A mirror reading technique was utilized in which the author "was required to read the specimens as they ap— peared upside down in a mirror placed at the top of the page" (p. 780). Two authors (Bell, 1939; Voorhis, 1931) erroneously report that students, rather than the research— er, read the handwriting samples. The mirror method was adopted to make the reading "so difficult that all the de- tails of the words read must be utilized before the words could be identified." Her conclusion was that the data suggest "manuscript writing produced by elementary school pupils is more legible than cursive writing produced by elementary school pupils" (p. 782). In another part of the study, the author found that it was easier for students to recognize grouped consonant letters in manuscript than in cursive in a flash presentation. In a writing test, stu- dents in grades two through five wrote manuscript at a faster rate than cursive, and students in grade six wrote cursive faster than manuscript. Table III of her study 34 erroneously reports "words" written in one minute. The correct reporting should be "letters" per minute. Long and Mayer (1931) reported a word recognition experiment involving approximately 1000 first grade stu— dents. One group received manuscript handwriting instruc— tion, and the other group received cursive handwriting in- struction during an eight week period. Using the Detroit Word Recognition Test, the groups were tested at the begin- ning and end of the instructional period and also at the end of the semester. The authors state that . . . print pupils score higher than cursive pupils . . . and there is some evidence that the cursive procedure creates unnecessary difficulties for the pupils for some time after they have be- gun reading print (p. 355). In two experiments Bell (1939) compared the legibility of typewritten, manuscript, and cursive materials as read by college students. The subjects read letters, nonsense syllables, and prose which was typewritten in pica or pre— pared in the two handwriting styles by expert and non- expert penmen. Part of the experiment made use of eye movement photography to measure fixations and regressions. Bell concluded that typed material was read more rapidly than cursive script, that manuscript was read as rapidly as typewriting, and that manuscript was read more rapidly than cursive script. In a classic review of his work in the field of legi— bility of various kinds of print and handwriting spanning nearly four decades, Tinker (1963) discussed the problems 35 of illegible print and handwriting for poor readers and "especially for children who are learning to read." For the mature reader, variation in legi- bility of letters due to mutual confusion of individual letters is a very minor factor and should cause little concern. But for children Who are learning to read and for poor or imma- ture readers, confusion of letters of similar form can usually cause difficulty (p. 42). Downing (1973) reported a study by Eve Malmquist in the primary grades in Sweden in which two groups of chil- dren used either manuscript or cursive handwriting in their first through third grade school years. The manuscript- trained group was superior to the cursive group in the leg— ibility of their handwriting and their silent reading com- prehension. The difference was attributed to a "reduction in the variety of alternative symbols to which the experi- mental group was exposed during the first two and a half years" (p. 198) which led to both an improvement in reading as well as in writing achievement. Experimental data strongly suggest that cog- nitive clarity was readily developed in his ex- perimental group because the superfluous variety of symbols was reduced. The amount of unneces- sary "noise" in the stimulus situation was cut down sufficiently for these students to perceive more rapidly the important structural elements of the code and the way they operate. In con- trast, the control group were hindered in their groping for cognitive clarity by the extra super- fluous variations in the cursive characters thrust upon them before they had mastered the manuscript symbols (p. 198). Plattor and Woestehoff (1967) conducted a study to de- termine the relationship between children’s ability to read manuscript writing and their ability to read cursive 36 writing. They also investigated the relationship between children's ability to read cursive writing and their abil- ity to read cursive writing and their ability to write in cursive style. Their subjects were 27 children in one first grade class, 40 children in two third grade classes, and 45 children in two fifth grade classes. No handwriting samples were obtained from grade one students. The other handwriting samples, from grade three and five students, when compared with reading test scores, indicated "no re- lationship between the ability to read cursive writing and the ability to write in cursive style" (p. 51). The researchers administered the Word Recognition Test of the Gates Primary Reading Test to the first grade class and the entire Gates Reading Survey Test to the third and fifth grade classes. They found that children who had learned to read manuscript with reasonable skill had little difficulty in learning to read the new cursive symbols. However, if children vary in their ability to transfer from manuscript to cursive symbols in reading as well as in writing, and if the range of reading ability expected at any grade level is as great in reading cursive style, then facility in both areas may well be af- fected by the transition process . . . and the child who has experienced difficulty in learning to read will need substantial atten- tion (in learning to read cursive) (p. 52). Hildreth (1936) is a prolific writer and proponent of the use of manuscript writing. She contended that manu- script is a natural form of handwriting for young children and that they can copy manuscript with greater facility 37 'than cursive writing. She believed that the reason for this was "in manuscript the letters are not joined and each separate letter presents a simpler perceptual Gestalt than the word wholes of cursive form" (p. 127). In her experi- ment with 26 children of kindergarten age, she found that correct letters were six times as frequent in manuscript as in cursive style. Correct words were nearly 12 times as frequent in manuscript as in cursive style. Hildreth.tl944) advocated the use of manuscript writing in the upper grades. She argued against transition, saying "unfortun- ately, at the end of Grade II is just the point at which the child has acquired a skill that he is actively using to exPress his thoughts on paper" (p. 85). Transition, she beleived, retarded the development of skill in functional, expressive (manuscript) writing which "may be delayed or even destroyed." Hildreth stated that manuscript writing was justified in the primary grades because of its ease of learning, its adjustment to growth tendencies of children, its legibility, and its aid to reading and spelling. These are advantages which are also desirable, she felt, in the upper grades. Manuscript writing, she contended, was as rapid and usually more legible than cursive writing. She argued against the dual system, saying that when changing to cursive writing, children "have not only to learn to write the new style but to learn to read it as well" (p. 88). She also felt that transition might cause psychological ill effects which "are 38 avoided when manuscript writing is continued throughout the grades" (p. 89). Based on her research study comparing the speed of joined and unjoined writing strokes, Hildreth (1945) be- lieved that manuscript writing can be fast enough in the upper grades for all practical purposes and that children who first learned manuscript writing in the primary grades would do well to continue in that style. To achieve economy in learning it is recom- mended that all children who are to learn to ‘read and write material employing the Roman alphabet be taught manuscript writing. Then the material they write by hand and on the type- writer will correspond with the handwritten and printed material they read (p. 101). Hildreth (1948) was firm in her belief concerning the integration of the language arts and the reinforcing nature of reading and writing. She stated that manuscript writing reinforces word recognition and sentence sense. It increases "awareness of the characteristic features of words" (p. 541), aids in building a sight vocabulary, and aids word recognition. "Familiarity with words is in- creased by writing experiences." In her discussion of early writing as an aid to read- ing, Hildreth (1963) stated that learning to read was rein- forced by simultaneous experiences in writing. Whether a child is reading or spelling, he is dealing with the same set of phonic elements re- presented with the same graphic symbols . . . . The tendency to keep reading and writing apart in beginning reading instruction is unfortunate be- cause of the mutual relationship between the two processes (p. 15). 39 "The key to writing as an aid to reading in the early stages," she wrote, "lies in the use of manuscript-style writing" (p. 16) which more closely resembles the type of the printed page and typewritten material than cursive style of writing. Hildreth points out that copying words in manuscript calls attention to the details in words and this process of building up the words, though exactly the opposite of reading, reinforces memory for the distinctive features of a word. She continued this line of thinking by implying that there was a process of "fixing words in mind" in manuscript style. In another article reviewing that status of manuscript writing after 60 years, Hildreth (1960) argued against the use of cursive writing based on the issue of its difference in appearance from machine—printed words. All perception studies show that the farther hand—written letter forms depart from the verti— cal the less legible they become. Joining the letters, increasing the slant, elongation of the letters, and added loops all decrease legibility, because legibility is directly proportionate to the degree of similarity between machine printed type-face and hand writing style (p. 5). In summary, she wrote that "to the extent that word forms in handwriting deviate from machine—printed words, the words are less legible." In additionto being a natural style for children who are beginning to read and write, Hildreth advocated the use of manuscript for remedial readers who could have made faster progress in remedial reading if they had used print 4O script. "The continuation of manuscript style," she wrote, "is a boon to slow learners who are not so far advanced as others by the third grade" (p. 10). The Slow learners may be upset by the "change-over" and they would "benefit from doing things the simplest way, and need this link between writing, reading, and spelling." In her writings, Hildreth made a strong case for the continued use of manuscript writing for all students from preschool though high school. Her defense of manuscript and her answers to the critics and prOponents of cursive appear to be very rational. At times she seemed to over- state the importance of the issue and her arguments. In View of the fact that our national and world economy demand the most efficient instruc- tion of elementary school children in all phases of literacy, this manifest source of waste in education (the teaching of cursive) should be eliminated at once (p. 11). Three highly respected authorities in the areas of teaching and learning disabilities, Maria Montesorri, Grace Fernald, and Anna Gillingham, have indicated their prefer- ence for the use of cursive rather than manuscript hand- writing. Their opinions were based on extensive experience and observation with remedial students and conflicted with the research and opinions of the proponents of manuscript writing. Montesorri (1964, 1967) discussed the "explosion" into writing that she experienced by young children of preschool years. She argued against print which used vertical lines 41 and circles and contended that round and flowing script was more natural. Accordingly, she had children trace letters of the cursive alphabet as part of handwriting and reading instruction. Photographs and exhibits in her works were examples of children's experiences with cursive writing. Fernald (1943) also used cursive script in the teach- ing of spelling, reading, and penmanship. She had children trace and copy letters and words using cursive letters and then typed the words or story for the childre. She wrote that after a story had been written by the child, it was typed for him and he read it in print. Whatever the individual writes must be typed for him and read to him before too long an inter- val. Since the individual is able to recognize words in script or print after he has written them, it is essential that his recognition of words in print be established by having him read the printed form of what he writes (p. 41). Gillingham (1960) also used cursive script exclusively in her remedial instruction. She stated that it was . . . by definite intention that no special system of penmanship is here recommended (and that) we shall not discuss here the relative advantages of manuscript and cursive script (because) this subject is highly controversial and lies largely outside our immediate field (pp. 345—6). However, in other parts of her work, she stated that "we are convinced after careful observation that cursive script is somewhat preferable for a child with tendency to mirror- writing" (p. 346). She also opined that "experience has convinced us that for most remedial pupils the Spencerian form of penmanship is much better than vertical Print 42 Script" (p. 45). She also stated that "irreparable harm is done by some schools which start with Manuscript and change to Cursive in the second or third grades“ (p. 46). Her primary objections centered on the tendency to reverse some letters such as "b" and "d." She alleged that print script employed many more reversible letters. Her mentor, Dr. Orton, was quoted as saying that "impressions made on nerve tissue are never wholly eradicated. They are only white- washed over. They linger on, confusing later impressions" (p. 46). As proof of her contention, she cited the example of writing in high school papers "where manuscript form asserts itself in the middle of cursive words." She made the general statement that "all of the above difficulties are avoided by cursive script" (p. 57). E. A. Enstrom (1960), director of research and in- structional development for Peterson Handwriting, is a pro- lific writer on handwriting and a staunch prOponent Of cur— sive writing. While agreeing that manuscript may have its advantages for the beginning reader and writer, he wrote that "one serves the writing needs of the less mature indi- vidual (manuscript); the other, the needs of the maturing child and the adult (cursive)" (p. 362). Enstrom (1969) believed that cursive writing was fas- ter than manuscript and that it was "really" writing and that manuscript was a less mature form of handwriting that served primarily as a tool for transition to cursive writ- ing. "If cursive style is not taught when the child is 43 ready for it, he invents cursive form of his own" (p. 329). Print, he contended, often became so individualized that it could not be read. He also believed that spacing in hand- produced print between letters and between words presented a serious problem in legibility. Enstrom mentioned that "research clearly showed that small, finger-produced print handwriting does not stand up under pressure of use over longer periods of time." In this instance, he was quoting his own research which may have been somewhat biased. He made a plea to elminate "fruitless subject integration" that could only create impossible learning environments and to teach separate, daily cursive handwriting sessions. To combine lessons on handwriting with lessons in other subjects is not unlike trying to learn to play the violin while learning, at the same time, the history of the invention of the oboe! (p. 332) Enstrom believed that those who have not been taught cursive have been "cheated" and left feeling "inadequate." He cautioned that "sound educational programs must not be swayed by the whims of the unknowing few" and that cursive writing "needs to be taught with a full appreciation of our prodigious heritage" (p. 332). An evaluation of Enstrom's writing revealed a degree of emotionalism, distortion of research, and bias. A thorough review of the research concerned with cur- sive writing revealed mostly opinion concerning its merit and suggestions for methods of teaching the various cursive styles of several publishing companies. Few of the 44 serious prOponents of cursive debated the issues listed by Gates and Voorhis. Secondary Sources: Chronolggical Review of Significant Opinions Grill (1930) suggested that spelling improvement was a result of the use of manuscript writing because "the mental image of the written word is in practically the same form as the printed word" (p. 410). She advocated the use of one alphabet, manuscript, for both reading and handwriting, "for by doing so the writing then becomes a valuable asset to reading and reading to writing." Grill believed the two subjects should be taught simultaneously "because the child gets visual images of similar forms both in his reading and in his writing." She concluded that "the fact that manu- script writing and print type are so much alike is one of the most convincing reasons for the superiority of manu- script writing," particularly for the visually impaired learner. Crider (1932) wrote "that the evidence with respect to the relative merits of cursive and manuscript is somewhat conflicting" (p. 622). In his test measuring speed of handwriting, he found that third grade students who had been taught cursive writing in previous grades could switch to manuscript with ease and acceptable performance. Arnold (1933), however, argued against the use of man- uscript. She stated that illegibility of manuscript re- sulted when speed was desired. She believed that 45 manuscript was more difficult than connected, flowing cur- sive handwriting and that "continual lift (of the writing instrument) in manuscript writing retards speed and makes it slow for the adult hand" (p. 620). Conard (1935) stated that experiments lead her "to believe that it is better to teach children the unjoined forms of letters in lower grades because these resemble more fully the printed forms of letters in books" (p. 170). She supported the integration approach to reading and writ- ing instruction because both were closely associated through using manuscript form of letters. Cutright (1936) reinforced the pro-manuscript position by stating "there seem to be no studies of any weight which would discredit the statement that manuscript writing is a distinct aid to young children who are learning to read print" (p. 140). She also suggested that manuscript may aid in correct spelling and "may aid children in express- ing themselves more freely than does cursive" (p. 160). Booras (1936), in his study which was concerned pri- marily with the legibility of cursive, upper case letters, concluded that similarity of forms is the chief cause of confusion and that distinct features and differentiating parts were helpful in perception. He found that for the most part, "print forms are more legible than cursive" (p. 70). Washburne argued against transition from manuscript to cursive because there was no evidence to support the 46 dual system of handwriting in the schools and adult life. He reported handwriting norms of adults as being approxi- mately 122 letters per minute in either manuscript or our- sive style. This researcher has confirmed the Washburn estimates with samples obtained from five groups of elemen- tary teachers. The mean scores were approximately 120 let- ters per minute in both cursive and manuscript handwriting styles. Bell (1944) stated that manuscript was important "in teaching reading since it involves the learning of only one alphabet" (p. 76). The letter forms were not changed as in cursive writing. The child handwrote words that looked like the ones he was asked to read in books, charts, and on the chalkboard. "This similarity helps to eliminate con- fusion in the child's mind." Bell also supported the con- cept that reading and handwriting are mutually reinforcing language arts skills. She did write that while young chil- dren may have some difficulty in reading cursive, older children usually read it with little difficulty. Lewry (1947) presented several examples of variations among manuscript alphabets and suggested that "since one of the principal advantages of manuscript writing is the correlation with reading" (p. 515), there should be a uni- form manuscript handwriting alphabet which is highly simi- lar to the "type forms with which children are familiar." Carter (1953) and Hendricks (1955) both believed that manuscript should be continued and used at all grade levels 47 including high school. Carter stated that it "promotes Skill in reading and language" and "correlates better with reading, language, Spelling, and art" (p. 2). Carter pre- sented cursive and manuscript handwriting samples and other supporting data to demonstrate that manuscript was faSter and more legible than cursive and that its use promoted expressional skills. Hendricks stated that fewer eye move- ments were required to read manuscript than curSive and that "in fact, it is as easy to read as typewritten mater- ial" (p. 448). Templin (1960) stated that it was educationally sound to learn and master a single system of handwriting. She supported the use of manuscript, especially for boys and adult males who, she believed, found this style of writing easier than cursive. Templin believed that the continued use of cursive handwriting in the curriculum resulted from "doing what others do without questioning whether it is right or wrong" (p. 387). Herrick (1961) discussed the difficulties inherent in the dual system of handwriting. "The transition from manu- script writing to cursive is complicated by the lack of uniformity in the formation of both manuscript and cursive symbols" (p. 266). His review of the literature resulted in two recommendations of either maintaining manuscript or making the transition at a time when it could be efficient- ly and economically done. 48 Byers (1963) conducted a study to determine if style of handwriting had any effect on spelling achievement. She used 586 third grade students entering fourth grade as sub- jects. She concluded that "cursive writing as compared to manuscript writing did not affect accuracy in spelling" (p. 88). Byers qualified the results by stating that groups were not completely comparable, ability levels may not have been equal, and that previous teachers and instructional methods may have altered the resulting scores. There was a "slight difference, though not significant, favoring manu— script writing in so far as spelling accuracy was con- cerned" (p. 89). Otto and Askov (1968) conducted a study to determine any effects that time of transition from manuscript to cursive writing may have on reading and spelling perfor- mance. Fourth and sixth grade students in 12 school dis- tricts participated in the study. The districts made to transition to cursive in either fall or spring of the se- cond or third grades. Results of reading, handwriting, and spelling tests showed "no support for the notion that time of transition may affect subsequent reading perform- mance" (p. 20) and little influence on handwriting and spelling performance. A study by Erdmann and Neal (1968) using 72 college students as subjects investigated the effects that letter legibility, word Size, and word familiarity have on word legibility. The researchers concluded that "letter 49 legibility is helpful in predicting word legibility and knowledge of word familiarity further increases the ac- curacy of such predictiOns" (p. 409). It would seem to follow and confirm the common belief that accurate letter recognition and rapid recognition of words increase speed of reading. Barbe (1978, 1980) stated that "manuscript writing is taught in the primary grades because it most closely re- sembles the letter forms children are learning to read" (p. 1). He believed that manuscript writing should come before cursive writing and cited research which "definitely favors manuscript writing in the beginning grades." Barbe mentioned ease of learning, speed, and legibility as fac- tors supporting the teaching of manuscript writing in the primary grades. He further stated that "manuscript writing helps children with spelling, Since many spelling errors are actually handwriting illegibilities" and may foster develOpment in related facets of the language arts. Barbe, who is a consultant for a major publisher of handwriting materials, argued for use of both manuscript and cursive saying that cursive was a "more advanced method of writing" and that it was "perfectly natural to step up to cursive." Lehman (1979) stated that cursive writing, "even after years of practice (is) accident prone and tends to break down under pressure of everyday use" (p. 6). He advocated the use of italic script and generalized about the results of instruction with commercial cursive handwriting systems 50 with the criticism that "by the time many students are in seventh grade, the teachers cannot read their illegible scrawls" (p. 13). Wing (1979) wrote that "unusual letter forms can make reading difficult" (p. 284). He believed that cursive may be difficult to read because "different letter forms are indistinguishable." ,From his studies Wing has determined that although the joining of letters may increase speed of production, it cOuld negatively affect legibility and "can be a problem for reading" (p. 285). Gray (1969), after 40 years of limited research and considerable published opinions by others concerning the manuscript versus cursive controversy, summarized the con- tentions in the literature. It is interesting, from a re- search point of View, to compare them with the list of Gates and Brown and of Voorhis to nOte their similarity. In the 19805, proponents of manuscript writing made the following claims for this style of writing. 1. Manuscript is learned easier and quicker by students in the primary grades. 2. Manuscript letters have simpler forms than cursive. 3. Manuscript requires no joiningstrokes al- though connecting forms are often used. 4. Manuscript is similar to drawing with which young children are acquainted. 5. Manuscript is suited to the muscular and motor develOpment of primary children. 6. Manuscript possibly causes less eyestrain and physical strain than cursive. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 51 Manuscript allows children to express ideas on paper more quickly so that they get an early feeling of satisfaction. Manuscript is more legible and more rapid than cursive for students in the primary grades. Manuscript results in fewer failures. Manuscript makes written expression easier and encourages creative expression. Manuscript has a clearer and more pleasing appearance than cursive writing when used on charts, booklet covers, and art work. Manuscript clarity tends to create emotiOnal security. Manuscript requires less teacher supervision. Manuscript allows comparison of letters with printed ones and thus allows detection of errors in the formation of letters. Manuscript uses the same alphabet the chil- dren meet in reading and thus eliminates con- fusion arising from having to learn two forms of each letter. Advocates of cursive writing denied many of the above claims for manuscript and made the following arguments for cursive writing. 1. Manuscript lacks the rhythm of cursive writing. There is less chance for individuality of style in manuscript than in cursive writing. Children must learn a second form of letters when they transfer to cursive writing. Children who learn manuscript may have diffi— culty in reading cursive writing. Children may have difficulty when required to make the change from manuscript to cursive, thus affecting their rate of learing. Many teachers are not trained to use or teach manuscript. 52 7. Parents often prefer cursive writing and in- sist that it be taught. Summary of Literature Review For over 60 years the manuscript versus cursive debate has been argued with little resolve of basic issues. Is cursive writing a curse on the child who is beginning to learn to read and handwrite? Is it a "manifest source of waste" as stated by Hildreth or an important part of our "prodigious heritage" as stated by Enstrom and a valuable skill for the maturing child and adult? The research questions of this study, which evolved from the review of the literature, will attempt to par- tially answer some of the questions which are concerned with the effects of manuscript and cursive handwriting on beginning reading and handwriting skills of below average and above average reading achievement students who are entering fourth grade. The hypotheses of this study were based on the follow- ing research questions. In what style of handwriting did these children, in both groups, visualize individual words? In what format, manuscript or cursive, did they visually perceive words in their minds? In what style of handwriting did they most accurately identify individual letters? Can they identify letters in manuscript format that they have misidentified in cursive format? Was the task of word identification in cursive format more difficult for the below average than the above average reader? Was it more 53 difficult for students in both groups to identify words in ‘cursive format than manuscript format? Was the task of de- coding paragraphs in curSive format more difficult for the below average than the above average reader? Was it more difficult for students in both groups to decode paragraphs in cursive format than manuscript format? Was the task of handwriting letters and words in cursive format more diffi- cult for the below average than the above average reader? Was it more difficult for students in both groups to hand- write letters and words in cursive format than manuscript format? What style of handwriting did these students pre- fer to read? What style of handwriting did these students prefer to handwrite? Hypotheses which could be researched were needed so as to attempt to answer these questions. The hypotheses and the means for testing them are the subject of Chapter III. CHAPTER III (HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to state the hypotheses and to explain the methods for testing them., It will begin with a description of the subjects and the selection pro-' cess. The 11 hypotheses will be stated and clarified. The construction, purpose, and use of measurement devices rela- tive to each hypothesis will be discussed. Methods of administration and preliminary scoring will be explained along with a description of computer processing and statis- tical analysis techniques. The chapter will conclude with a statement of conditions and assumptions which will limit the scope and generalization of the study. Selection of Subjects The subjects were selected from four third grade classrooms in a public elementary school located within 20 miles of Lansing, Michigan. The classrooms have an average class size of 23 students which are heterogeneously grouped in the opinions of the school principal and classroom teachers. From a total of 92 students, 40 were selected to par- ticipate in the study. Twenty subjects were defined as 54 55 below average reading achievers, and 20 subjects were de4 fined as above average reading achievers. Each teacher identified eight students in each category and also identified the student she considered to have the highest reading achievement and the student having the lowest ' achievement level in reading. The highest and lowest read- ing achievement students were eliminated from the subject group to reduce the possibility of a skewed effect on per- formance scores. From each group of 28 students classified as below average and above average, 20 students were selected at random as subjects. (The other 16 students participated in the study only to check the readability levels and matched nature of the oral reading paragraphs. To verify the.teacher judgment for inclusion in the two achievement groups, each student was asked to pronounce words on the Slosson Oral Reading Test and to read a graded oral reading paragraph. These tests confirmed teacher judgment and placement of subjects into their respective groups. Students were selected at the end of third grade level and entering fourth grade because they had received formal instruction in cursive handwriting since-the beginning of third grade. They received instruction in manuscript handwriting during their kindergarten, first and second grade years. While in the third grade, they are expected 56 to make a transition from the manuscript to the cursive system of handwriting. By the end of third grade, these students were expected to complete most written work using curisve handwriting. The basic question posed by this study is whether the introduction of cursive writing may cause decoding and encoding problems for some students. For this reason testing various performance skills at this time seemed opportune and relevant to the hypotheses of this study. Students were tested during the last week in May and the first week in June. Individual testing sessions for above average subjects lasted for approximately 20 minutes. Testing sessions for below average subjects lasted for approximately 25 minutes. Hypothesis One Below average and above average reading achievement students enteringyfourth grade will visualize words in lower case manuscript. Accurate visual perception of letters is a prerequi- site skill for the application of phonics and word analy- sis skills. It is necessary for a student to be able to match letter names with their respective visual symbols and the visual impressions which they see in their minds. In a pilot study individuals of various ages usually visualized isolated words in lower case manuscript. Occasionally, the 57 individuals would visualize the words in upper case manu- script or lower case cursive formats. Hypothesis One was designed to determine what format, manuscript or cursive, a student entering fourth grade used to yisualize words that s/he may be asked to read, spell, and write. In the testing situation the student was asked to pretend to see a large white card or screen with his/her eyes closed. S/He was then told to make the letters of a word, that was pronounced by the examiner, appear on the 'card or screen. The word "bed" was pronounced by the examiner. The student was told to lock at the word very carefully so that s/he could remember what the word looked like when s/he opened his/her eyes. .When the student said s/he could see the word and remember what it looked like, Hs/he was told to open his/her eyes and show what s/he saw by reproducing it on a 3" x 4" card that was placed before him/her. The student then wrote the word on the card using a ball point pen. The task was repeated with the pro- nounced word being "was." It was expected that stu- dents in both groups would visualize and reproduce the two words in lower case manuscript format. Hypothesis Two Below average and above average reading achievement students entering fourth grade will correctly identify letters in manuscript format that previously had been iden- tified incorrectly in cursive format. 58 Accurate letter recognition is a prerequisite skill for the application of phonics and word analysis skills. It is also a required skill for handwriting letters and words. Carroll (1976) lists letter recognition as a very important component of the reading process. "The child must learn to recognize and discriminate the letters of the alphabet in their various forms (capitals, lower case let- ters, printed, and cursive)" (p. 13). Ekwall (1976) writes that "numerous studies" indicate that letter knowledge identifies children who are "more likely to become better readers than children who lack this knowledge" (p. 64). He also stresses that "children who reach the middle or upper grades without a thorough knowledge of the alphabet are quite likely to be disabled readers" (p. 64). In a pilot study elementary school students incor- rectly identified letters in cursive format that they could correctly identify in manuscript format. Hypothesis Two was designed to determine the frequency of letter miscues in cursive format and the ability of a student to correctly identify the miscued letters in manuscript format. In the testing situation the student was asked to pro- nounce all letters of the lower case cursive alphabet. Each letter was seen twice, and the letters were arranged in random order. The examiner noted all identification errors. The student was then asked to pronounce manuscript letters corresponding to any cursive letter error to deter- mine if s/he could correctly identify the letter in 59 manuscript format. The cursive letter errors, when read in manuscript format, were masked within a group of three other manuscript letters. It was expected that students in both groups would cOrrectly identify letters in manuscript for- mat that they had incorrectly identified in cursive format. HypotheSis Three Below average and above average reading achievement students entering fourthpgrade willypronounce matched word lists more slowly in cursive format than in manuscript for- pap. Accurate word pronunciation of high frequency words is an important component in the reading process. Ekwall (1976) reviews several studies of high frequency words and believes that the 300 moSt frequent words may account for 70% or more of the total running words in elementary school reading materials. The ability to pronounce isolated high frequency words is a part of several standardized and in- formal reading tests. For this study 100 words were selected from the Ameri- can Heritage Word Frequency Book. The words were randomly selected from the 300 most frequent words. They were ar- ranged in four columns of 25 words each. The word arrange- ment was altered slightly on word lists which were prepared in three formats, manuscript, cursive, and typed. Hypothesis Three was designed to determine if hand- writing format, manuscript or cursive, had an effect on the 60 ability of a student to pronounce matched word lists. In the testing situation the student was asked to pronounce as many words as s/he could during a 30 second period from the typed list. All errors were noted. The student then was asked to pronounce the same words on the manuscript and cursive lists in a 30 second period. All errors were noted. The handwritten lists were presented alternately with subjects to reduce any practice and fatigue effects. It was expected that students in both groups would pro- nounce fewer words in cursive than manuscript format. Hypothesis Four There will be a rate differential between below average and above average reading achievement students en- tering fourth grade in their abilities to pronounce words in cursive and manuscript formats. It was expected that below average reading achievement students would pronounce fewer words in 30 seconds than above average reading achievement students in all formats. Hypothesis Four was designed to determine if cursive format Was a greater detriment for the below average group. Analy- sis of mean scores will establish a performance standard for each group when pronouncing words in the typed and handwritten formats. It was expected that there would be a performance differential which would indicate that cursive format would result in more errors and fewer pronounced 61 wOrds for the below average students and that cursive for- mat would be a greater detriment for the below average group. Hypothesis Five Below average and above average readingyachievement students entering fourth grade will decode matched para- gpaphs more slowly in cursive format than in manuscript format. Informal reading inventories consisting of grade level paragraphs are frequently used, in addition to pronuncia- tion of graded word lists of high frequency words, to assess reading ability and achievement. Maranzo (1978) cautioned that "the graded word list is not a short cut to an IRI" (p. 647) in reading Skills. LaPray (1978) wrote that "were teachers limited to the use of only two tests in the area of reading, one should be a graded word list, and the other an oral paragraph test" (p. 66). Hypothesis Five was designed to determine if handwriting format, manuscript or cursive, had an effect on the ability of a student to read matched oral paragraphs. Three paragraphs, written at the first grade level of difficulty, were selected from the Ekwall Reading Inventory. Each paragraph consisted of 75 words arranged in 10 sen- tences. One paragraph was prepared in typed format. Two paragraphs were prepared in both manuscript and cursive formats. 62 In the testing situation the student was asked to read the typed paragraph and time of performance was noted. If the student paused, became confused, or didn't know a word, the examiner gave assistance after approximately three se- conds. The student then was asked to read paragraphs in manuscript and cursive formats. Paragraphs and formats were alternated with subjects to reduce any unmatched con— tent and fatigue effects. Time of performance was noted. It was expected that students in both groups would read cursive paragraphs more slowly than manuscript paragraphs. Hypothesis Six There will be a rate differential between below average and above average reading achievement students entering fourth grade in their abilities to decode para- graphs in cursive and manuscript formats. It was expected that below average reading achievement students would read paragraphs in all formats more slowly than above average reading achievement students. Hypothe- sis Six was designed to determine if cursive format was a greater detriment for the below average group. Analysis of mean scores will establish a performance standard for each group when reading paragraphs in the typed and handwritten formats. It was expected that there would be a performance differential which would indicate that cursive format would result in slower reading of paragraphs and that cursive format would be a greater detriment for the below average group. 63 Hypothesis Seven Below average and above average reading achievement students entering fourth grade will encode letters and words more slowly in cursive than in manuscript format. The ability to encode letters and to handwrite words accurately and with acceptable speed is necessary in spell- ing and composition tasks. Hypothesis Seven was designed to determine a student's ability to handwrite lower case letters of the manuscript and cursive alphabets and eight words having all the letters of the alphabet. In the testing situation the student was asked to copy the lower case letters in alphabetical order in both manu- script and cursive formats. The student also copied eight words (the, quick, brown, fox, jumps, over, lazy, dog) in both manuscript and cursive formats. Handwriting format was alternated to reduce any practice and fatigue effects. Time to complete tasks was noted. It was expected that students in both groups would encode letters and words more slowly in cursive format than manuscript format. Hypothesis Eight There will be a rate differential between below average and above average reading achievement students en- tering fourth grade in their ability to encode letters and words and words in cursive and manuscript formats. It was expected that below average reading achievement students would encode letters and words more slowly than 64 than above average reading achievement students in both formats. Hypothesis Eight was designed to determine if cursive format was a greater detriment for the below aver- age group. Analysis of mean scores will determine if there is a performance differential. It was expected that our- sive format would be a greater detriment for the below aver- age group. Hypothesis Nine Below average and above average reading achievement students entering fourth grade will report it is easier to read manuscript than cursive handwriting. Hypothesis Ten Below average reading achievement students entering fourth grade will report it is easier to handwrite using manuscript rather than cursive handwriting. Hypothesis Eleven Above average reading achievement students entering fourth grade will report it is easier to handwrite using cursive rather than manuscript handwriting. Students were asked which format they believed was easier to read and which format was easier to handwrite. At the end of the testing situation, students indicated their preferences and their responses were noted. It was expected that below average reading achievement students would prefer to read and handwrite manuscript and that 65 above average students would prefer to read manuscript but would prefer to handwrite using cursive. Hypotheses Nine, Ten, and Eleven were designed to determine student prefer- ence for reading and handwriting using manuscript and cur— sive formats. Computer Processing and Statistical Analysis Following the testing situation with each student, scores were recorded and.files for each of the 40 indivi- duals were prepared for future reference. Data included name, sex, and chronological age of each subject. Visuali- zation format preference was noted along with number of cursive letter errors. Word pronunciation scores for typed, manuscript, and cursive formats were recorded as number of words pronounced in a 30 second interval. (Scores for oral reading of paragraphs in typed, manuscript, and cursive formats were recorded as number of seconds required to read each paragraphs. Scores for encoding the lower case alphabet, and eight words were recorded as number of seconds required to complete the encoding task. Student preferences for reading and handwriting manuscript and cur— sive formats were noted. These data were keypunched on computer cards and veri- fied for accuracy with handscored information. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences(l975h the data were processed by computer to yield measurements of central 66 tendencies and distributiOns for the total group and each of the two subgroups. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine if there was a statistically significant interac- tion effect present in the data concerned with typed, manu- script, and cursive formats for the two different subject groups for word pronunciation, paragraph reading, and en- coding tasks. The chi square test of significance was applied to de- termine if a significant difference was present in the data concerning reading and handwriting preferences of the two groups. Pearson Correlation Coefficients were obtained to quantify the extent to which the format variables were re- lated. Borg (1979), Van Dalen (1979), and'Isaac (1981) were used as primary references for the statistical design used in this study. Analysis of the statistical results and their application to the 11 hypotheses are the subject matter of Chapter IV. Limiting Conditions and Assumptions Generalizability of the Results of the Study The results of the study may not be generalizable to all third grade students entering fourth grade. The re- sults may be generalized as applying to those students who have characteristics similar to the subjects of the study. 67 Previous Instruction Effect Subjects in the study received one year of formal in- struction in cursive handwriting during the third grade. Handwriting instruction in previous school years was in manuscript. It is expected that the subjects will be more compentent in the use of manuscript and the design and methodology recognized this factor. Teacher Variable Effect Students may perform at various levels of achievement as a result of having different teachers. No attempt was made to control or adjust for this factor. Practice Effect In tasks which are repeated using matched materials, there may be higher scores as a result of using the same materials. Formats were alternated in an attempt to reduce the practice effect. Fatigue Effect In tasks which are repeated using matched materials, there may be a variance in scores as a result of a fatigue effect. Formats were alternated in an attempt to reduce the fatigue effect. Matched Content Effect Formats were alternated in an attempt to reduce un- matched content which may occur in the oral paragraphs. 68 Subject matter and words differed in the oral paragraph selections. Decoding and Reading ‘Decoding refers to the pronunciation of words when preSented with their graphic representation. Decoding does not consider the semantic and syntactic nature of the reading material. No attempt was made to measure compre- hension of material that was decoded. Test Materials Materials in cursive format were prepared by a hand- writing consultant employed by a major publisher of hand- writing instructional materials. Materials in manuscript format were prepared by an experienced first grade teacher. It is assumed that they are of similar quality. Significance The level of probability for assessing statistical significance is p = .05. In general, statistical signifi- cance is referred to in the study, and no value judgments are made concerning educational significance. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to report the research data, to statistically analyze these data, and to accept or reject each of the 11 hypotheses. Factual information will be reported and evaluated for each hypothesis. The results will be discussed as they apply to the subject groups and the possibility of their application to similar populations will be considered. It will also be appro- priate, in some instances, to discuss the performances of individual subjects. Charts of group mean scores and cor- relation coefficients will be reported and evaluated to further clarify the findings of the study. The chapter will conclude with a synthesis and summary of results. Hypothesis One, Visualization Thirty-eight of the 40 students reproduced the pro- nounced words "bed" and "was" in lower case manuscript let- ters. Only two students reproduced the words using lower case cursive format. The hypothesis is accepted since 100% of the below average and 90% of the above average group visualized the two words in lOwer case manuscript 69 70 rather than lower case cursive letters. This result is significant and could be expected of other students who re- semble the subject groups. Hyppphesis Two, Letter Identification Students incorrectly identified from 2 to 15 of the 52 lower case cursive letter presentations and, in all but three instances, were able to correctly identify the cursive letter errors in manuscript format. The cursive letters 3, y, p, p, d, g, and i were the most frequent errors. Students usually called a letter name which had distinctive features which were highly similar to the stim- ulus letter, such as y for p and g for g. It appears that the seven named letters are the most difficult to identify and that cursive letter format is significantly more difficult than manuscript letter format for students in the below average group. The below average group mean Score for letter errors was 5.15 as compared to the above average score of 1.95. These results indicate that both groups made errors in cursive letter format that they corrected in manuscript format. Hypothesis Two is accepted. Hypothesis Three, Word Pronunciation In periods of 30 seconds, students pronounced between 18 and 69 words in typed format, between 22 and 68 words in manuscript, and between 12 and 71 words in cursive format. 71 Subjects initially pronounced words on the typed list. They then pronounced the same words, in a slightly differ- ent order, in manuscript and cursive format word lists. The mean scores for the below average group were 36.70 pronounced words in 30 seconds in typed format, 40.35 words in manuscript format, and 32.35 words in cursive format. The below average group pronounced, on the average, 8.10 more words in manuscript than cursive format. The mean scores for the above average group were 56.05 pronounced words in 30 seconds in typed format, 60.00 words in manuscript format, and 53.50 words in cursive format. The above average group pronounced, on the average, 6.5 more words in manuscript than cursive format. The hypothe- sis is accepted, indicating that both groups pronounced the matched word lists more slowly in cursive than in manu— script format. The analysis of variance indicated a statistically significant difference in performance (p = .00001) between groups as was expected because of different levels of read- ing achievement. The multivariate tests of significance also indicated a significant difference in performance (p = .00001) between formats. The univariate F-tests indicated a significant difference in performance (p = .00001) be- tween manuscript and cursive scores. As could be expected, those words which were incor- rectly pronounced in typed and manuscript formats were also incorrectly pronounced in cursive format. Although 72 students missed other words in the cursive list the number of errors was quite small. Hypothesis Four, WOrd PronunciatIOn Differential Effect I The repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that there was no-statistically significant differential effect on group performance (p = .73570) due to the effect of manuscript and cursive formats. There was no interac- tion effect or performance differential present in the data concerned with typed, manuscript, and cursive formats for the two groups in the word pronunciation task. In other words, after making allowance for different levels of read- ing achievement, it can be concluded that cursive format is not a greater detriment for the below average group in word pronunciation. Figure l graphically illustrates the mean scores which indicate a high degree of parallelism and a lack of signif- icant interaction between reading achievement levels and symbol formats. Hypothesis Four is rejected. Hypothesis Five, Oral Paragraph Reading Students required between 19 and 105 seconds to read a 75 word, 10 sentence paragraph in typed format. They re- quired between 21 and 115 seconds to read the matched manu- script format paragraph and between 25 and 137 seconds to read the matched cursive format paragraph. Subjects Figure 1. Number of Words Pro- nounced in 30 Seconds Above average: 73 Mean Scores: Word Pronunciation, Hypotheses Three and Four 70 60 50 4O 30 20 10 Below average Typed Manuscript Cursive bove average a..~'"".9{rOUP ‘ (60.00) ' ' . . (56.05) (53.50) average .belOW. - ' ' . ‘ ° . .group . ' (40.35) ' ' - . Number of Words Pronounced in 30 Seconds Typed Manuscript Cursive 56.05 60.00 53.50 36.70 40.35 32.35 74 initially read the typed paragraph. They then read matched paragraphs in manuscript and cursive formats. The mean scores for the below average group were 50.00 seconds to read the typed paragraph, 51.00 seconds to read the.paragraph in manuscript format, and 61.95 seconds to read the paragraph in cursive format. The below average group required, on the average, 10.95 seconds more to read the cursive paragraph than the manuscript paragraph. The mean scores for the above average group were 30.00 seconds to read the typed paragraph, 29.90 seconds to read the paragraph in manuscript format, and 36.10 seconds to read the paragraph in cursive format. The above average group required, on the average, 6.20 seconds more to read the cursive than the manuscript paragraph. The hypothesis is accepted, indicating that both groups decoded matched paragraphs more slowly in cursive than in manuscript for- mat. It is interesting to note that the time required to read typed and manuscript formats was nearly equal with a difference of 1.0 seconds for the below average group and .10 seconds for the above average group. It would appear that manuscript format is read with equal facility when compared to typed format. With an alpha level of .05, the analysis of variance indicated a significant difference in performance (p = .00016) between groups as was expected because of different levels of reading achievement. The multivariate tests of 75 significance also indicated a significant difference of performance (p = .00001) among formats. The univariate F-tests indicated no significant dif— ference in performance (p = .63819) between ability to read typed andmanuscript format paragraphs. There was a sig- nificant difference in performance (p = .00001) between ability to read the manuscript and cursive format para- graphs in favor of the manuscript format. Hypothesis Six, Oral Paragraph Reading Differential Effect The repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that there was no statistically significant differential effect on group performance (p = .22515) due to the effect of manuscript and cursive formats. There was no interaction effect or performance differential present in the data con— cerned with the reading of paragraphs in typed, manuscript, and cursive formats for the two groups. In other words, after making allowance for different levels of reading achievement, it can be concluded that cursive format is not a greater detriment for the below average group in para- graph reading. Figure 2 graphically illustrates the mean scores which indicate a high degree of parallelism and a lack of signif- icant interaction between reading achievement levels and symbol formats. Hypothesis Six is rejected. Figure 2. 76 Mean Scores: Paragraph Reading, Hypotheses Five and Six Typed Manuscript Cursive 70 09 ° 60 q‘fio. Seconds 3 . . (61.95) Required averda ° to 50 . 881.0“. - - ' Read (51.00) _Selection (50°00) 40 91:9“? ‘ 30 . aPOYe. . . .aYeIage" a . (36 o 10) (30'00) (29.90) -20 10 0 Seconds Required to Read Selection Typed Manuscript Cursive Above average 30.00 29.90 36.10 Below average 50.00 51.00 61.95 77 Hypophesis Seven, Encoding Students required between 66 and 168 seconds to encode 26 letters and 8 words in lower case manuscript format. They required between 79 and 408 seconds to encode 26 let- ters and eight words in lower case cursive format. The mean scores for the below average group were 122.60 seconds to encode using manuscript and 208.50 se— conds to encode using cursive letters. The below average group required, on the average, 85.90 seconds more to en- code letters and words in cursive format rather than manu- script format. The mean scores for the above average group were 103.95 seconds to encode using manuscript and 157.15 se- conds to encode using cursive letters. The above average group required, on the average, 53.20 seconds more to en-. code letters and words in cursive format rather than manu- script format. The hypothesis is accepted, indicating that both groups encoded letters and words more slowly in cur- sive than in manuscript format. With an alpha level of .05, the analysis of variance indicated a significant difference in performance (p = .00161) between the two groups and a significant differ- ence in performance (p = .00001) between manuscript and cursive formats. 78 Hypothesis Eight, Encoding Differential Effect The repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that there was no statistically significant differential effect on group performance (p = .24620) due to the effect of manuscript and cursive formats. There was no interac- tion effect or performance differential present in the data concerned with the encoding of letters and words in manu- script and cursive formats. In other words after making allowance for different levels of achievement, it can be concluded that cursive format is not a greater detriment for the below average group in the encoding of letters and words. Figure 3 graphically illustrates the mean scores which indicate a degree of parallelism and a lack of significant interaction between reading achievement levels and symbol formats. While it appears that the lines are diverging, the extent of the interaction is not statistically signifi- cant. The task of encoding in cursive is more difficult for the below average group but not to the extent which would indicate that cursive is a greater detriment for the below average group in the encoding of letters and words. Hypothesis Eight is rejected. Hypotheses Nine, Ten, and Eleven, Reading and Handwriting Preferences Twelve students in the below average group preferred to read manuscript and eight students preferred to read Figure 3. Mean Scores: and Eight 225 Seconds 200 Required to Encode 175 Letters and Words 150 125 100 Above average Below average 79 Encoding, Hypotheses Seven Manuscript Cursive 69. ’0' gtfh (157.15) 90’ 6&9?” f” .1 46. (122.60)'é¢0, (103.95) Seconds Required to Encode Letters and Words Manuscript Cursive 103.95 157.15 122.60 208.50 80 cursive. This same ratio for reading preference was in- dicated by Students in the above average group. The chi square test of significance indicated no significant dif- ference (p = 1.0000) present in the data. (In the total group, eight more students preferred to read manuscript rather than cursive handwriting, and . Hypothesis Nine is accepted. The results, however, are neither conclusive nor significant. Eleven students in the below average group preferred to handwrite manuscript,and nine students preferred to handwrite cursive. Seven students in the above average group preferred to handwrite manuscript, and 13 students preferred to handwrite cursive. The chi square test of significance indicated no significance (p = .3404) present in the data. Hypotheses Ten and Eleven are accepted, but the results are neither conclusive nor significant. Table of Correlation Coefficients To further clarify the findings of the study, it is helpful to refer to Table II (Appendix B) which re- ports correlation coefficients. These coefficients are measures of the strength of relationship between variables but do not necessarily imply a cause and effect relation? ship. The coefficient, when squared and multiplied by 100, indicates the percentage of variance held in common by each variable. 81 Letter identification in cursive format is related to the subject's ability to pronounce words in cursive (r = -.7082), to read paragraphs in cursive (r = .5175), and to encode cursive handwriting (r = -.6532). The abilities to pronounce typed words and to pronounce manuscript format words are highly correlated (r = .9315). Similarly, the abilities to read typed paragraphs and paragraphs in manu- script format are highly correlated (r = .9554). The ability to encode cursive handwriting is highly correlated with the ability to read words in cursive for- mat (r = .7753) and the ability to read paragraphs in our- sive format (r = -.5116). The ability to encode cursive handwriting is also highly correlated with the ability to encode using manuscript letters (r = .8027). Another notably high correlation is the relationship between abilities to read paragraphs in manuscript formats and cursive formats (r = .9174). Individual Performances It is generally agreed among educators that indivi- dualized instruction to meet individual needs is a worthy goal. For this reason, in a study such as this, it may be helpful to examine individual performances. This kind of individual diagnosis is frequently a prerequisite for suc- cessful remediation on an individual basis. 82 Student #17 in the below average group made 15 cur- sive letter errors. He correctly identified all manuscript letters. Although he could pronounce 40 words in manu- script format during a 30 second interval, he could pro- nounce only 12 words in cursive format. In paragraph read- ing he required 70 seconds to read the cursive paragraph as contrasted with 48 seconds for a typed paragraph and 40 seconds for a manuscript format paragraph. Encoding cur- sive letters and words required 320 seconds which is nearly twice the time required to accomplish the same task using manuscript letters. These results indicate a serious difficulty with both decoding and encoding using the cursive symbol system. It may be that this student is experiencing both perceptual and cognitive confusion and is realtively unable to do letter identification and translation between manuscript and cursive formats. It would seem appropriate to postpone reading and handwriting in cursive format until these skills are firmly established in manuscript format. The results do indicate that this student is relatively successful in decoding and encoding of the manuscript symbol system. Student #35 in the above average group had similar problems which were most likely the result of the dual sym- bol system. His performances on cursive word pronunciation and cursive paragraph reading were much poorer than the same tasks in typed and manuscript formats. Encoding in 83 cursive wasaalaborious undertaking for this student. He required an average of seven seconds to reproduce each cur- sive letter as compared to less than three seconds to en- code a letter using the manuscript symbol system. It would seem appropriate to postpone or perhaps abandon efforts to teach cursive handwriting to this student and to allow handwriting using the manuscript alphabet. The results do indicate that this student is relatively successful in en- coding of the manuscript system. Chapter Summary and Conclusions The testing of the 11 hypotheses using a repeated measures analysis of variance along with an analysis of mean scores and correlation coefficients indicates the fol- lowing conclusions which can be applied to the subject group and other populationswhich resemble them. 1. The predominant format for visualization of words by third graders entering fourth grade is lower case manu- script. 2. Above average reading achievement students can readily identify lower case cursive letters but below aver- age reading achievement students exhibit varied abilities with some having considerable difficulty in cursive letter identification. 3. Both groups can identify cursive letter errors when presented in manuscript format and have no difficulty with letter recognition of lower case manuscript letters. 84 4. Both groups pronounce matched word lists more slowly in cursive format than in manuscript format. 5. The cursive word pronunciation task is not sig- nificantly more difficult for the below average than the above aVerage reading achievement student. After making adjustments for different levels of reading achievement, it can be determined that there is not a statistically significant interaction due to formats and that cursive is not a greater detriment for the below average reader. 6. Both groups read handwritten cursive paragraphs more slowly than typed and handwritten manuscript para- graphs. 7. The cursive paragraph reading task is not signifi- cantly more difficult for the below average than the above average reading achievement student. After making adjust- ments for different levels of reading achievement, it can be determined that there is not a statistically significant interaction due to formats and that cursiVe is not a greater detriment for the below average reader. 8. Encoding in cursive format is slower than encod- ing in manuscript for both groups. For several students in both groups, cursive encoding is significantly slower than manuscript encoding. A few students experience serious difficulty with cursive handwriting, taking nearly twice as long to encode when compared to manuscript handwriting. 85 9. Student preferences for reading and handwriting manuscript and cursive formats are varied and not signifi- cantly different. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the study, to state conclusions, and to make recommendations for other needed research. This study was intended to analyze the effects of manuscript and cursive handwriting on reading skills and handwriting skills of 40 third grade students. Chapter I stated the research questions in general terms and included definitions of key terms used in the study. The nature of the controversy centering on diffi— culties which are confronted by students who are learning to read, handwrite, and spell and the incidence of hand— writing illegibility was discussed along with the need for research in these areas. The scope and sequence of beginning reading and hand- writing skills and their interrelationships from preschool years through third grade were outlined. The focus of the investigation was narrowed to the effects of cursive hand- writing on the decoding and encoding skills of third grade students entering fourth grade who have either below aver- age or above average reading achievement. 86 87 Chapter II reviewed precedent research and opinions which provided a historical background and a rationale for the development of the hypotheses of the study. A review of primary and secondary sources indicated the persisting nature of the controversy concerning the use of manuscript and cursive handwriting. For over 60 years the manuscript versus cursive debate has been argued with little resolve of basic issues. The basic issues that the study was concerned with in- cludedtfluapredominant format for visualization of words and the abilities of students to identify lower case letters in both formats. Student abilities to pronounce matched word lists and to decode matched paragraphs in manuscript and cursive formats*wereinvestigated. Student abilities to encode lower case letters in the two formats Weremeasured. Another concern was to determine if learning and using the cursive symbol system was more difficult for students hav- ing below average reading achievement than for students having above average reading achievement. Chapter III explained the method of selection of sub- jects and their group classification into below average reading achievement and above average reading achievement. The 11 hypotheses were stated with clarifying remarks. Testing procedures and recording of scores were explained for each hypothesis. Computer processing and the statistical design of the study were described. A repeated measures of analysis was 88 used to determine if there was a statistically significant interaction effect present in the data concerned with vari- ous formats for the two different subject groups for word pronunciation, paragraph reading, and encoding tasks. The chi square was applied to determine if a significant dif- ference was present in the data concerned with reading and 11andwriting preferences of the two groups. Correlation co— efficients were obtained to further clarify the findings of the study. Limiting conditions and assumptions.| womh.| mham. Nao.nm moo.um aoo.nm *xaanm aoo.nm aoo.nm aoo.nm aoo.nm moo.nm mmmm.l momm.l wham.. oooo.a vmmm. mmmm.| mmv>.| ammn.l ahhm. mao.nm moo.um aoo.um aoo.um «««*um aoo.nm aoo.um aoo.nm moo.nm mnmm.| mmov.| «mam. vmmm. oooo.a amhm.u thh.| mnmn.l mmmm. aoo.um aoo.nm aoo.um aoo.um aoo.nm «««*um aoo.nm aoo.um aoo.nm mmhh. mmmm. mamn.| mmmm.| ambm.| oooo.a mnmm. mamm. Nwon.| aoo.um aoo.um aoo.nm aoo.um aoo.nm aoo.um *«44nm aoo.nm aoo.um mmwm. hmom. vnvh.| mmvn.| mmhh.l mnmm. oooo.a mama. vmmv.l aoo.um aoo.nm aoo.um aoo.nm aoo.nm aoo.um aoo.um «*««um aoo.um vomm. mmnv. momh.l ammh.| mmmh.l mamm. mama. oooo.a mmnv.l aoo.nm moo.nm aoo.um moo.nm moo.nm aoonm aoo.um aoo.nm *«««um mmmm.| nmmv.| mmam.n annm. mmmm. Nmon.l «va.a mmhv.l oooo.a mav.um omv.um vmm.nm mma.nm mom.nm mmm.nm mov.um mom.nm mva.um Nmmo. momo.. Nmma.l omma.l hmmo.| mmmo. ammo. mamo. mmna.l .>muso .Homcz .>musu .Homsz comme .>mH:U .Homcz comma muounm .mpocm .mcosm .smmum .nmmum .cmmnm mcuoz mono: mono: Hmuuwa moanmaum> Umuowamm st MOM magmaOammwoo coapmamunou SOmHmwm mav.nm Nmmo. omv.nm memo. vmm.um mmma.l mma.nm omma.l mom.um hmmo.l mmm.nm mmmo. mov.um ammo. wom.um mamo. mwa.nm mmwa.l *k«*um oooo.a .Na5m> .>mH:U .mscocm .Homcz .mcpozm .>mHDU .mnnmnm .uomsz .mnmmum wmmme .wnmmum .>muso mcuoz .Homcz mpuoz cwmme mpuoz wuouum Monumq COagmN Imamsmfl> 98 ‘APPENDIX C MATCHED WORD LIST on he it and the what or have be as your when were can not then way time which an look him make these would Matched Word List water my no did could take new now down first every year only after made help great just name give tell old much move different report home small well three men act high here add world animal try need light grow found page head self let eye between food learn late sea story hard tree white seem few night while letter both always easy got began eat carry care river main color cut base mountain 'APPENDIX D GRADED PARAGRAPHS TUFF THE BEAR Tuff was a big brown bear. He was very fat. He lived in a big park. He liked to eat honey best of all. He also liked to eat bread. park were Tuff When were Some people were in the having a picnic. They sitting by a big table. went to the picnic too. the peOple saw him they afraid. They all jumped up and ran away. Then the bear ate all their food. 100 101 THE FIRE STATION Ann's class went to visit a fire station. One of the firemen was at the door. He said he was happy to see the class. He showed the class a big fire truck. Then he showed them a car. The car and the truck were both red. The big truck had a long ladder on it. Then the class went back to school. They were very happy. They told the teacher they wanted to go again. 102 THE BIRTHDAY PARTY Steve was going to have a birthday party. He asked all of his good friends to come. His mother made a big cake for him. She put eight candles on it. Steve's dog was in the house that day. Soon Steve's friends were at the door. The dog began to bark. He was afraid of all of Steve's friends. Steve told his dog to go to his room. Then the children began playing some games. APPENDIX E HANDWRITING EXAMPLES Letter Identification Sheet ‘xtolidcabe 1°J' krSzahmn Pctuvaiuwe rs+1bihknm vxyzadactoc 0" V/f/ 103 104 The Fire S‘kfi'ion Ann‘s class wen't'jb visi’t’ a fire sf'a‘fion. One at the firemen was 01' fhe door. He said he was happy To .See +he class. : He showed The :CJaSs a his tire hunk. Then he showed "them a car.- The car and The Truck were hofh red. The big Truck had a long ladder on 3+. Then the class wen't back To school. They Were very happy. They TOM The Teacher they WanTed To go again. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, D. W. Handwriting research: Style and practice. Elementary English, February 1965, 42, 115-125. Arnold, E. W. The transfer from manuscript to cursive writing. Elementary School Journal, April 1933, 33, 616-20. Barbe, W. B. The relationship of reading and handwriting instruction. Columbus: Zaner-Bloser, 1978. Barbe, W. B. Why manuscript writing should come before cursive writing. Columbus: Zaner-Bloser, 1980. Bell, H. M. The comparative legibility of typewriting, manuscript and cursive script: I, easy prose, letters and syllables. Journal of Psychology, October 1939, 8, 311-320. Bell, J. What is manuscript writing? Grade Teacher, October 1944, LXII, 32, 76. Bell, M. E. Manuscript writing after the primary grades. Education, September 1968, 89, 81-83. Borass, H. 0. An experimental study of the relative merits of certain written letter forms with respect to legi- bility, with speed and stability as related factors. Journal of Experimental Education, 1936, 5, 61-70. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. Educational research: An in- troduction. New York: Longman, 1979. Byers, L. Relationship of manuscript and cursive writing to accuracy in spelling. Journal of Educational Re- search, October 1963, 51, 87-89. Carroll, J. The nature of the reading process. In. H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1970. Carter, M. K. Manuscript writing or cursive writing. Journal of Education, October 1953, CXXXVI, 2-3. 106 107 Conard, E. U. A test of speed and quality in manuscript writing as learned by adults. Teachers College Re- cord, 1930, 33, 449-67. Conard, E. U. The growth of manuscript writing in the U.S. Childhood Education, January 1935, 11-12, 170-4. Crider, B. The adaptability of pupils to manuscript writ- ing. Elementary School Journal, April 1932, 33 617-22. Cutright, P. Script-print and beginning reading and spell- ing. Elementary English, 1936, 33, 139141. Downing, J. A. Comparative reading: Cross-national studies of behavior and processes in reading and writing. New York: Macmillan, 1973. Durkin, D. Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press, 1966. Durkin, D. Teachingithem to read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970. Durkin, D. Teaching young children to read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980. - Ekwall, E. Diagnosis and remediation of the disabled reader.’ Boston: 'Allyn and Bacon, 1976. Ekwall, E. E. Ekwall reading inventory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1979. Enstrom, E. A. After manuscript writing--when shall we begin curSiVe? Elementary School Journal, 1960, 33, 24-27. Enstrom, E. A. Print--handwriting today. ElementarygEng- lish, 1964, 33, 846-50. Engstrom, E. A. But how soon can we really write? Elemen- tary English, 1968, 43, 360-63. Enstrom, E. A. Those questions on handwriting. Elementary School Journal, 1969, 33, 327-33. Erdmann, R. L. Word legibility as a function of letter legibility, with word size, word familiarity, and resolution as parameters. Journal of Applied Psychol- egy, 1968, 33, 403-409. Fairbank, A. J. The story of handwriting, origins and developmene. New York: Watson-Guptill, 1970. 108 Fairbank, A. J. A book of scripts. London: Faber and Faber, 1977. Fernald, G. M.7 Remedial techniques in basic school sub- jects. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1943. Freeman, F. N. Survey of manuscript writing in the public schools. Elementary SchoOl Journal, 1946, 33, 375-80. Gillingham, A. Remedial training for children with speci- fic learningidisability in reading, spelling and pen- manship. Cambridge: Educators Publishing Service, 1960. Gates, A., & Brown, H. Experiemental comparisons of print- script and cursive writing. Journal of Educational Research, 1929, 33, 1-14. Gray, W. S. The teaching of reading and writing: An international survey. Paris: UNESCO, 1969. Grill, E. G. Manuscript writing and its value to a sight saving child. Educational Method, April 1930, 407-12. Groff, P. J. From manuscript to cursive-—why? Elementary School Journal, 1960, 33, 97-101. Harris, T. L. Handwriting. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Columbus: Macmillan, 1958. Hendricks, A. E. Manuscript and cursive writing in Brook- line. Elementary School Journal, 1955, 33, 447-52. Herrick, V. E. Manuscript and cursive writing. Childhood Education, 1961, 33, 264-67. Herrick, V. E. New horizons for research in handwriting. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963. Hildreth, G. Copying manuscript and cursive writing. Childhood Education, 1936, 33, 127-28. Hildreth, G. Should manuscript writing be continued in the upper grades? Elementary School Journal, 1944, 33, 85-93. Hildreth, G. Comparative speed of joined and unjoined writing strokes. ‘Journal of Educational Psychology, 1945, 33, 91-102. Hildreth, G. Interrelationships among the language arts. Elementary School Journal, 1948, 538-49. 109 Hildreth, G. Manuscript writing after sixty years. Ele- mentary English, 1960, 33, 3-13. Hildreth, G. Early writing as an aid to reading. Elemen- tary English, 1963, 33, 15-20. Hill, P. S. Introduction. In M. Wise's On the technique of manuscript writing. New York: Charles Scribner, 1924. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. Handbook in research and evalua- tion. San Diego: EDITS Publishers, 1981. Johnston, E. Writing and illuminating, and lettering. London: Pitman, 1906. Keim, S. L. The present status and significance of manu- script writing. Journal of Educational Research, 1931, 33, 115-25. Kimmins, C. W. A word of C. W. Kimmins. In M. Wise's 93 the technique of manuscript writing. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924. King, F. M. Manuscript and cursive writing, continue teaching both. NEA Journal, November 1964, 27-28. Lehman, C. Teaching and learning the craft of handwriting. Visible Language, 1979, XIII I, 4-15. Lewry, M. E. Improving manuscript writing in primary grades. Elementary School Journal, 1947, XLVII, 508-15. LaPray, M. H. On the spot reading diagnosis file. West Nyack, NY: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1978. Long, H. H., & Mayer, W. Printing versus cursive writing in beginning reading instruction. Journal of Educa- tional Research, 1931, 33, 350-55. Meranzo, R., Larson, 5., Tish, G., & Vodehnal, S. The graded word list is not a shortcut to an IRI. Read- ing Teacher, March 1978, 647-651. Monroe, W. Handwriting. Encyclopedia of Educational Re- search. Columbus: Macmillan, 1952. Montessori, M. The Montessori method. New York: Schocken, 1964. Montessori, M. The absorbent mind. New York: Dell, 1967. 110 Newland, T. E. An analytical study of the development of illegibilities in handwriting from the lower grades to adulthood. Journal of Educational Research, 1932, 33, 249-58. ' . Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. O'Brien, R. The moving finger writes--but who can read it? Saturday Review, July 18, 1959, 33, 8-10. Otto, W., & Askov, E. What are effects of timing, writing transition. Wisconsin Education Journal, 1968, 100, 20. Otto, W., & Anderson, D. Handwriting. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Columbus: Macmillan, Peck, M., Askov, E., & Fairchild, S. Another decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect in the 19705. Journal of Educational Research, 1980, 13, 283-98. Plattor, E., & Woestehoff, E. The relationship between reading manuscript and cursive writing. Elementary English, 1967, 33, 50-52. Polkinghorn, A. Current practices in teaching handwriting. Elementary School Journal, 1946, 33, 218-24. Reeder, E. An experiment with manuscript writing in Horace Mann school. Teachers College Record, 1926, XXVIII, 255-60. Templin, E. Research and comment: Handwriting, the neglected R. Elementary English, 1960, 33, 386-89. Templin, E. Manuscript and cursive writing, teach one or the other. NEA Journal, November 1964, 26-28. Tinker, M. A. Legibility of print. Ames: Iowa State Uni- versity Press, 1963. Tinker, M. A. The ten more important legibility studies-- an annotated bibliography. Reading Teacher, 1966, 33,- 46-48. Tinker, M. A. Experimental studies in the legibility of print: An annotated bibliography. Reading Research Quarterly, 1966, 3, 4, 67-118. 111 Turner, 0. The comparative legibility and speed of manu- script and cursive handwriting. Elementary School VanDalen, D. B. Understanding educational research. New , York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. VOorhis, T. G. The relative merits of cursive and manu- ecript writing. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1931. Walker, C. High frequency word list for grades 3 through 9. Reading Teacher, April 1979, 803-812. Washburne, C., & Morphett, M. Manuscript writing--some recent investigations. Elementary School Journal, 1937, 33, 517-29. West, P., & Freeman, F. Handwriting. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Columbus: -Macmillan, 1952. Western, R. D. The case against cursive script. Elemen- tary School Journal, 1977, 33, 1-3. Wing, A. M. Variability in handwritten characters. Visible Language, 1979, 33, 283-98. Wise, M. On the technique of manuscript writing. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1|HIMIHHIIWIHIIHI NW 1 H H (LII HIWIHIH 1293 03085 35