.

The decline of children’s motor development in recent years, has become a growing concern in European and wider international contexts (Bolger et al., 2020, O’Brien, Belton, & Issartel 2015; Lepes, Halsi, & Josip, 2016). As a consequence, many children are failing to reach motor developmental milestones (Bolger et al., 2020), thus impacting on their capacity to develop key handwriting skills upon entry to school (Bara et al., 2015; Feder & Majnemer, 2007; Gaul & Issartel, 2015; Graham et al., 2008; Grissmer et al., 2010; Lepes et al., 2016; McGlashan et al., 2017; Roebers et al., 2014; Santangelo & Graham, 2016; Santangelo, 2015; Suggate et al., 2016; Van der Fels et al., 2016). While the importance of handwriting is contested (Graham, 2018), in a time of fast-changing technological advances, a recent OECD report emphasises the fundamental role that handwriting continues to hold in a wider global and societal context: "writing is enduringly important, with an indispensable role in our communication and learning. Our societies, cultures, and politics all shape and are shaped by the nature and content of our writing; and much of our linguistic heritage is preserved in written form" (OECD 2018, p. 10).

Shaped by this international context, as well as successive curricular and policy reforms in the area of literacy education in Ireland, including the Primary Language Curriculum (NCCA, 2019), this paper responds to the decline in children’s motor development by a) providing a baseline measure of motor proficiency among children in their first year of school, b) comparing the motor proficiency of children across socio-economic contexts, c) designing and implementing a sensorimotor handwriting programme in response to identified motor development needs, and d) evaluating the efficacy of the sensorimotor handwriting programme. 

By synthesising Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model of human development (1979, 1988, 1992, 2005, Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) with theories of cognitive development (Piaget, 1952, 1974) and motor development (Ayres, 1972, 1979, 1989), this paper aims to highlight the sociocultural aspect of motor development, and enables the researchers to understand children’s handwriting and motor development within a wider sociocultural context.

This study is guided by the following research questions:

1. What is the baseline measure of motor proficiency of a sample of children upon entry into school across socio-economic contexts?

2. Is there a significant difference in children’s motor proficiency upon entry into school across socio-economic contexts?

3. What pedagogical approaches should be included in a sensorimotor handwriting programme for the early years?

4. What supports do teachers require to be able to implement a sensorimotor handwriting programme effectively in the early years classroom?

5. What are the effects of a sensorimotor handwriting programme on the development of the fine and gross motor skills and early handwriting skills of children.

By establishing links between levels of motor proficiency of children, sociocultural influences and emergent handwriting skills, findings of this paper are significant for educators across European and international contexts. Specifically, it is hoped that findings will be valuable for teachers in providing opportunities to meet the developmental handwriting needs of young children, particularly those from areas of lower socio-economic status. Findings will also be of assistance to policy makers in providing appropriate resources to combat a specific aspect of lower literacy levels. 

The paper incorporates a mixed methods approach with two phases of data collection. The rationale behind using mixed methods is that there could be more learned about the research topic by combining the strengths of qualitative research with the strengths of quantitative research while compensating for weaknesses of each method at the same time (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The first, quantitative phase of the study involved the assessment of fine and gross motor skills of 178 children upon entry into school. Child participants were recruited from six schools across socio-economic contexts. Children were assessed using the standardised Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2) (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005). Phase two of the study involved both qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection. The ten class teachers of the participating children attended a professional learning day focusing on the implementation of the sensorimotor handwriting programme. Following this, the ten class teachers implemented the handwriting programme with their classes over a 16-week period. Each teacher was observed on one occasion implementing the programme with their class. Post-implementation of the programme, children were retested using the standardised testing instrument. Semi-structured interviews were employed with teachers to gather information relating to changes in perceptions, knowledge and practice in the areas of motor development and emergent handwriting skills. The benefit of using a mixed method approach was that it enabled the researcher to triangulate the data gathered from the standardised test, the observation days and the semi-structured interviews. The concurrent nature of the data collection process allowed for cross-validation of findings to occur, and presented an opportunity to determine if there was convergence, differences or a combination of both emerging from the data (Creswell, 2009). The researcher was able to process and analyse the quantitative data from phase one and it provided the rationale for adapting a sensorimotor handwriting programme for implementation in junior infant classrooms to address the emergent handwriting skills of junior infant children. The observation days of the programme in action provided qualitative data in the form of Field Notes that further contributed to answering the research questions, and informed the topics for the semi-structured interviews in phase two. Teachers’ knowledge, perceptions and understanding of sensorimotor development and emergent handwriting were gathered and used to interpret and support the quantitative data that were gathered pre- and post-implementation of the programme.

Descriptive analysis of the quantitative data indicates that: - 49% of children in disadvantaged schools scored either below average or well below average compared to just 15% of children in non-disadvantaged schools. - only 42% of children in the disadvantaged schools scored average in relation to their motor proficiency for their age, compared to 75% of children in the non-disadvantaged schools. An independent t-test showed a significant difference between the mean motor competency of participants in the advantaged schools (49.60) and the non-disadvantaged schools (40.56) upon entry to school and pre-implementation of the sensorimotor handwriting programme. Paired sample t-tests were used to analyse changes in the mean motor proficiency in disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged schools over the two time points – pre-implementation of the programme and post-implementation of the programme. Mean motor proficiency scores for disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged schools were combined, and significant differences over time were recorded. Findings illustrate that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean standard score for motor proficiency for children in disadvantaged schools and non-disadvantaged-schools pre-programme (M=45.17, SD= 10.04) compared to post-programme (M=47.71, SD=9.64), t (162) = - 4.62, p < .005 (two-tailed). This means that post-implementation of the programme, on average, children across all of the schools scored higher in relation to motor proficiency. Qualitative findings are based on thematic analysis of the interview data with teachers. Findings suggest that the sensorimotor programme was impactful in relation to children’s enjoyment, motivation and confidence in relation to handwriting. Findings also indicate that the role of preschools is critical in relation to children’s motor development and handwriting development, and that children living in areas of lower-socio economic status have limited access to sports clubs and activities that promote motor development.

Ayres, A. J. (1964). Tactile functions: Their relation to hyperactive and perceptual motor behavior. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 18, 6–11. Ayres, A. J. (1972a). Sensory integration and learning disorders. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Ayres, A. J. (1974). Occupational therapy for motor disorders resulting from impairment of the central nervous system. In A. J. Ayres (Ed.), The development of sensory integrative theory and practice: A collection of the works of A. Jean Ayres (pp. 34–53). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Beery K.E., Beery N.A., & Beery, V.M.I. (2010) The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-motor Integration with Supplemental Developmental Tests of Visual Perception and Motor Coordination: And, Stepping Stones Age Norms from Birth to Age Six. Administration, Scoring, and Teaching Manual. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson. Behan, S., Belton, S., Peers, C., O’Connor, N.E., & Issartel, J. (2019) Moving wellbeing well: Investigating the maturation of fundamental movement skill proficiency across sex in Irish children aged five to twelve, Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(22), 2604-2612. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner, W. Damon (Eds.) Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp.793–828). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in human development: Research paradigms: Present and future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in context: Developmental processes (pp. 25–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: Kingsley. Bruininks R.H., & Bruininks B.D. (2005). Test of Motor Proficiency. 2nd edition Manual: Circle Pines: AGS Publishing. Feder, K.P., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49, 312-317. Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher. 33(7), 14-26. Keller, M. (2001) Handwriting Club: Using Sensory Integration Strategies to Improve Handwriting. Intervention in School and Clinic. 37(1):9-12. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1956). The Child’s Conception of Space. New York: W.W. Norton Company. Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Handwriting Instruction. Educ Psychol Rev, 28, 225-265.