Seminar 2 –
Summary and Discussion
Questions posed
- a) Is handwriting a crucial skill?
- b) Should handwriting be specifically mentioned in Criterion A?
- c) Should both speed and legibility be assessed?
- d) What is the best way to assess handwriting? What are some of the variables?
a) Crucial skill
Despite the mention of the rise in computing skills by some groups, the general
response was that handwriting is still a crucial skill. Colleagues from
the UK noted its importance in schools with flexibility regarding alternative
modes of response being available only for exceptional cases. There appears
to be an apparent paradox with handwriting being crucial and necessary
for delivery of the National Curriculum, but with less time allocated for
specific and direct teaching, when compared to speaking, listening and
reading. A couple of groups noted that children care about handwriting
thus raising self-concept issues if ability is low, and it was still seen
by many as a socially desirable skill.
b) Inclusion in Criterion A?
This question produced two different responses which depended upon the starting
point of Criterion A from the first seminar. The first dominant response
(not unanimous) was that a simple statement concerning handwriting ought
to be in Criterion A e.g. ‘Poor handwriting with respect to expectation
for age and intelligence’. This could then be elaborated in Criterion
B e.g. effect on academic performance – speed and legibility for
note taking and examination; effect on activities of daily living – social,
form-filling, later for work-related activities. It appears that groups
were convinced that Criterion A and B ought to be linked with B elaborating
and providing examples for the general statement in Criterion A.
A second interpretation emerged during the Presentation Session when the
linkage to Seminar 1 on definition was raised. This was not explored in detail
but if Criterion A changed with suggestions form Criterion A taken forward,
this would have a knock-on effect on Criterion B and the ‘division’ of
the handwriting area may also change. Here, it was generally thought that
Criterion A should be about motor impairment in a general sense with Criterion
B providing a functional elaboration.
Individual comments:
- teachings are better at identifying handwriting difficulties than other areas such as gross motor difficulties.
- many children with handwriting difficulties are not identified as DCD.
- Important to separate handwriting and writing.
c) Speed and legibility
There was unanimous agreement that both speed and agility were essential
components and should be measured. “Work must be readable and the
child must be able to keep up”. There will be a speed-accuracy trade-off
but it is probably not linear and at some stage an over-emphasis on speed
may produce a ‘catastrophic’ fall in legibility. Colleagues
felt that demands on speed come in between 8 and 10 years of age.
d) How to assess?
As expected there were a variety of suggestions with the variation often
reflecting the reason why an assessment was being conducted. Conveniently,
Anna provided us with a potential list:
- Most groups addressed the question as to whether copying should be a task to use, and a majority were in favour particularly if the purpose of assessment was screening. The advantages include its simplicity, ease of control, eliminating the problem of generating ideas and speed is easier to assess. Copying also has the drawbacks that persuaded two groups not to recommend it; ecological validity and context were deemed to be lacking, it was often boring and as someone pointed out “associated with supply teachers”! Finally, there was a potential problem in scoring for legibility because we know what the child is writing.
- Free writing was seen as an ecological task and some groups addressed the issues involved. One group proposed the optimal duration of the task to be around 3 minutes. Speed is a problem when a child has to use part of the 3 minutes for generating ideas or simply stops.
- Some groups raised ‘instructions’ for any test as a variable that requires attention. We know of the powerful effects of instructions in any test involving children.
- Teachers were seen to be the starting point for assessment, but should have reference material locally normed for comparison with samples of poor/average/good for each age group.
Models of Movement Assessment
Peter Wilson outlined some fundamentals that require consideration:
- Models of assessment-normative, general abilities, neurodevelopmental, dynamical systems, cognitive neuroscience, what constitutes good assessment-construct validity, disorder of motor learning, developmental models
- Criteria that drive assessment
- Cognitive neuro-scientific approach-looking at unfolding brain-behaviour relations moderated by experience. Emphasis on cross disciplinary approach
- Emphasis on a move to multi level assessment, multi modal assessment and a rethink about what we mean by process oriented assessment. Such issues as multiple baselines, what movement tasks are sensitive to change, need to be addressed.
- Summary of experimental work on mental rotation-hands,
letters –and
mental imagery training
Early Identification and Assessment-Marian Jongmans
- The general opinion was that assessment in the very early years (3-5) was Ok but that no diagnosis of DCD should be made. Quotes like ‘monitoring not assessment’ were used and recommendations made that parents would be involved, ecologically valid items on a checklist used and much of this could be done through an extended current health check on school entry.
- Debate also centred on why one would assess at this age; concluded that it was mainly for screening purposes as part of a Gestalt-type overall assessment.
- Mention was made of variability in the 3-5 year old age group-how much stability is there in this group to make valid and reliable assessments.
- There was a need to take into account cognitive and language aspects with particular reference to at risk groups (prematurity).
- One group addressed older groups (16+) stressing the need for a 16+ checklist and valid assessment relating to ADL/educational and vocational needs.