An Evaluation of the Program Evaluation of the Handwriting Without Tears Printing Program
Wendy E. Hanewall, of the University of Wisconsin-Stout
completed an evaluation of the “Handwriting Without Tears” printing program in
2011. This evaluation follows elements
of the Stake Countenance Model with the use of anecdotal, descriptive data and
judgements of observations. This was a
formative evaluation as feedback was given during the delivery of the program,
in addition, this program is currently being used by many schools throughout
Canada and the United States. This evaluation
was a processed based evaluation due to the lack of pre and post
assessments. The purpose and goals of
the study were clearly laid out in the form of four questions, which were used
to address the effectiveness of HWT (“Handwriting Without Tears). The
formative nature of the evaluation as well as the expression of needs would
indicate elements of the Scriven model of program evaluation as well.
The methods
used to examine the curriculum components were criterion checklists, teacher
questionnaires and lesson observations
of teachers who are currently trained and implementing the “Handwriting without
Tears” program. The purpose of the study
was to examine the effectiveness of HWT for students having learning deficits
and or delays. Four key questions were
addressed:
1.
To
what extent does the teaching guide provide instructional methods, guidelines
and tips that are useful for students having learning challenges?
2.
To
what extent is the scope and sequence appropriate for students requiring an
individualized handwriting approach?
3.
To
what extent are the strategies for identifying and correcting handwriting
problems successful with students having learning disabilities or delays.
4.
To
what extent are the multisensory lessons and materials effective for teaching
students having individual instructional needs?
The results of
the evaluation indicated that it was a successful program. The teacher guide had eight out of the nine
features considered important to meet the criterion for question one. The results of the criterion checklist
analysis showed that the scope and sequence was appropriate for meeting
question two. However, for question
three which addressed the effectiveness of HWT in correcting handwriting problems
only the teacher survey was used as data.
This would be a weakness as the data collection was process based and
this goal of the evaluation was outcomes based.
Without pre or post assessments there is no way of knowing if the use of
the program is actually meeting the outcome of correcting handwriting
problems. The only basis for determining
the success of the program to correct handwriting problems was the observation
of teachers as they taught lessons found in the program. Finally, it was determined that the program
was successful in developing handwriting skills through multi-sensory
activities as presented in question four.
However, here again data collection was only a teacher survey and the
observation of four lessons utilizing multi-sensory strategies. This data collection would have been
processed based while the question was outcomes based.
The
incongruence of the process based evaluation for outcomes based goals is a
weakness for this program evaluation. In
addition, the evaluation was limited to one school with only five teachers and
seven students involved in the data collection.
This is far too small of a sample.
When considering the levels of evaluation this evaluation doesn’t go
past level one – reactions and feelings.
The greatest
strength in this evaluation was the thorough research, which was presented in
chapter two showing a strong understanding of what was needed for a quality
handwriting program. As well, a variety
of methods for data collection were used and recommendations were offered for
each of the four questions.
Having used the
Handwriting Without Tears program I found this evaluation to be very
interesting and well written and I would agree with the results of the teacher
questionnaires. Unfortunately, the lack
of outcomes based data was a major weakness.
