Davis,
Actually, keyboarding was one of the accommodations I recommended! Since the
student has legible writing and mom was complaining of fatigue, I recommended
keyboarding for longer, more intense writing activities. Unfortunately, mom
sees accommodations as a way out of her son doing what the other students are
doing, which will result in him depending on them. I tried explaining the
difference in the educational vs. medical model, but she is determined we
provide 'treatment' to address her concerns about hand strengthening. She has
requested an outside OT eval, which the district will have to pay for. The
principal of the school explained that even if the 'clinic' OT recommends
strengthening exercise, does not mean we are obligated to provide them. I
guess we'll see what happens.
Thanks for your input!
-Original Message-
From: otlist-boun...@otnow.com [mailto:otlist-boun...@otnow.com] On Behalf Of
David Harraway
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:47 PM
To: OTlist@otnow.com
Subject: Re: [OTlist] Evidence?
Hi, just coming at this from another angle - interested in learning from
those therapists who work with school aged population when they might
consider it appropriate to recommend to move from a handwriting based
means of text production towards primarily keyboard generated text for
class and homework?
If it's just plain hard slog for a kid to get through the demands of
class and school work using pen and pencil; and so much so that their
capacity to keep up with peers in terms of literacy and language
development; and given that the broader culture is jumping across to
work with digital media and the potential efficiency gains to be had by
doing so (not needing to double handle hard crafted sentences and
paragraphs)it seems that recommending that the student be working
smarter might be preferred in setting them up for life/work.
Can appreciate that there are potentially all kinds of cultural and
logistical constraints in this kind of recommendation; but in my
experience when a kid can use a keyboard to produce text at 30 wpm
neatly and only12wpm with pencil/ paper, the choice about which way to
go is fairly apparent.
As always though, it's a lot about the types and blend of tasks the
student is doing; and for sure work on handwriting for signatures etc;
but for the grunt work, if a keyboard is an possible accommdation; and
allows the focus to be redirected away from what is physically demanding
to what is really important - learning and language acquisition and the
social experiences gained from being with peers, then I say go for it.
David Harraway
OT working in AT
ComTEC
cmnahrw...@aol.com wrote:
Some conflicing evidence, but from my brief lit review it looks like
practice is the major factor. In the second study the intervention
was only to meet with the student twice a week for 30 minutes lasting
10 weeks. The intervention consisted of biomechanical, sensorimotor,
and teaching learning strategies (practice and feedback?). In the
first study provided it states that they compared sensorimotor
(strength, coordination, sensory training?) versus practice and the
practice intervention was more effective, in fact the sensorimotor
group declined in their ability.
1) The effects of sensorimotor-based intervention versus therapeutic
practice on improving handwriting performance in 6- to 11-year-old
children
P. L. Denton, S. Cope and C. Moser (2006)
Journal Title: American Journal of Occupational Therapy
Volume 60; Issue 1; Pages 16-27
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two
interventions (sensorimotor and therapeutic practice) on handwriting
and selected sensorimotor components in elementary-age children.
METHOD: Thirty-eight children 6 to 11 years of age with handwriting
dysfunction but no identified educational need were randomly assigned
to one of the two intervention groups or a control group. Intervention
groups met four times per week over 5 weeks. Handwriting was measured
pre- and postintervention using the Test of Handwriting Skills. Visual
perception (motor-reduced), visual-motor integration, proprioception,
and in-hand manipulation were also measured. RESULTS: Children
receiving therapeutic practice moderately improved handwriting whereas
children receiving sensorimotor intervention declined in handwriting
performance. The control group did not change significantly.
Sensorimotor impairment was noted at pretest in three or four
components and selected sensorimotor component function improved with
intervention. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic practice was more effective than
sensorimotor-based intervention at improving handwriting performance.
Children who received sensorimotor intervention improved in some
sensorimotor components but also experienced a clinically meaningful
decline in handwriting performance.
2) Effect of an
