As an undergraduate majoring in English, I wrote many essays. With each assignment I sharpened my skills for presenting a provocative argument or thesis, and then concisely and precisely defending it. The thesis was always stated right in the first paragraph, front and center: Willy Loman is a tragic hero suffering from the unbearable weight of a corrupted American Dream. It is not a question; rather, it is a statement that requires evidence for confirmation. Systematic reviews, on the other hand, begin with a question. The author might have predictions at the beginning, but the answer has yet to be discovered.
Jumping from the adult population to the pediatric population, a systematic review was exactly what the doctor ordered (pun intended). I had so many questions. Choosing the broadest for my PICO question seemed like a good place to begin. Should occupational therapists be addressing handwriting acquisition? Does our involvement improve handwriting outcomes? The macro questions led to countless micro questions: How do children learn to write? How is handwriting currently taught? When is handwriting considered impaired? Which interventions are most effective? Answering each question, methodically searching through the sea of published research, was instructive, enriching, and gratifying. For the first time, in a lifetime of completing writing projects, my goal was not to be concise, but it was to be complete. Eliminating time and page restrictions gave me the opportunity to catapult my understanding of handwriting acquisition from novice to knowledgeable.
Although completing the systematic review provided many of the answers I sought, I found that I still had, what I would call, “handwriting-adjacent” questions. Questions like: Should children learn to write using a particularly lined paper or sized pencils? Is there a correct way to hold the pencil? Does writing on an inclined or vertical surface improve handwriting? These questions are supplemental to learning how to write alphabetical letters, but they have practical consequences that needed to be resolved to draw the big picture. In producing The Write Way infographic, my aim was to provide the needed evidence-based recommendations and develop an easy-to-use complementary guide to help navigate handwriting instruction and intervention. While searching for the answers to these questions, I discovered that there are numerous beliefs and an abundance of commercially available products that purport to improve handwriting; however, there is a lack of research to suggest that a specific grasp, writing utensil, writing surface, or paper style will improve quality or proficiency. Plainly, without a fount of scientific evidence, there is an inherent difficulty in prescribing hard and fast recommendations. For example, in my first drafts of the infographic, I suggested “cautious use” of supplemental pencil grips because I was unable to find strong evidence of their efficacy. However after further deliberation, I realized that “caution” was a stronger term than the evidence supported. In fact, anecdotally, I found that when they were available, children gravitated to the colorful pencil grips and wanted to trial each variation. I noticed that trialing the grips encouraged conscious attention to grasp and finger placement; and furthermore, it provided the motivational bump that encouraged the plentiful practice students need to gain handwriting proficiency.
Clearly, at the onset of my exploration into handwriting acquisition, I was overwhelmed by questions and uncertainties. Producing these two artifacts granted me the space to systematically examine and scrutinize the available research and then produce cogent summaries. Through this process I have gained a level of confidence that will allow me to be a better advocate and expert as I move forward.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________