UNIVERSITY FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

TUMU COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

THE USE OF EARLY PREPARATORY WRITING ACTIVITIES TO

ASSIST BASIC FOUR LEARNERS OF TUMU BASIC SCHOOL TO

IMPROVE ON THEIR WRITING SKILLS

ELEKU TAGKUM PETER

2025
 UNIVERSITY FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

TUMU COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

THE USE OF EARLY PREPARATORY WRITING ACTIVITIES TO

ASSIST BASIC FOUR LEARNERS OF TUMU BASIC SCHOOL TO

IMPROVE ON THEIR WRITING SKILLS

BY

ELEKU TAGKUM PETER

TUCE/PRI/0052/2021

Project work submitted to the Faculty of Education, University for

Development Studies, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of

Bachelor of Education in Primary Education

2025
 DECLARATION

Candidate’s Declaration

I hereby declare that this project work is the result of my own original

research and that no part of it has been presented for another Degree in this

College or elsewhere.

Candidate’s Signature: …………………........ Index number: ………...…........

Name: …………………….......................................... Date: …………………..

Supervisor’s Declaration

I hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of this work were

supervised in accordance with the guidelines on supervision of project work

laid down by the University for Development Studies

Supervisor’s Signature: ……............................ Date: …………...........

Name: .…………………………………………………………………………..

ii
 ABSTRACT

This study investigates the effectiveness of early preparatory writing activities

in improving handwriting skills among Basic Four learners at Tumu Basic

School in Ghana. Poor handwriting was identified as a significant barrier to

academic performance, with 80% of learners demonstrating challenges in

legibility, spacing, and letter formation. Using an action research design, the

study engaged 40 purposively selected learners in a three-week intervention

involving activities such as tracing, air writing, sand tray exercises, and guided

sentence copying. Data were collected through pre- and post-tests and

structured observations. The findings revealed substantial improvements in

handwriting clarity, spacing, and consistency, with post-test results showing

85% of learners scoring within the higher performance bracket. The study

concludes that early preparatory writing activities are effective in enhancing

handwriting and recommends their integration into foundational literacy

instruction. Implications for teaching practice, parental involvement, and policy

development are discussed, alongside suggestions for future research on long-

term handwriting outcomes and instructional strategies.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A special acknowledgement to my supportive supervisor Mr. Abdulai

Babia Bukari, of Tumu College of Education for his lovely guidance,

corrections and support, which made it easier for me to produce this work. I also

express my deepest appreciation to whose books were used as references for

this work. In equal measure, I extend my heartfelt thanks and sincere

appreciation to my brothers and sisters, and all those who contributed their time,

expertise, and insights, whether through feedback, collaboration, or moral

support. Your contributions made this journey not only possible but truly

meaningful. May the Almighty God richly bless you.

iv
 DEDICATION

I affectionately dedicate this to my lovely parents, Mr. Peter Tagkum and

his wife, Mrs. Florence Peter and the entire Tagkum family.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ii

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

DEDICATION v

CHAPTER ONE 1

INTRODUCTION 1

Overview 1

Background to the Study 1

Description of Research Area 3

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 5

Objectives of the Study 6

Research Questions 6

Significance of the Study 6

Delimitations of the Study 7

Limitations of the Study 7

Organization of the Study 9

CHAPTER TWO 10

LITERATURE REVIEW 10

Overview 10

Conceptual Review 10

Causes of Poor Handwriting 11

The Methods of Teaching Handwriting 13

Theoretical Framework 15

vi
 Social Theory of Writing 15

Empirical Review 18

Summary of Related Literature 20

CHAPTER THREE 21

METHODOLOGY 21

Overview 21

Research Design 21

Population 23

Sample and Sampling Technique 23

Research Instruments 24

Test 24

Observation 26

Research Procedure 28

Pre-intervention 28

Intervention 29

Post-Intervention 35

Ethical Considerations 35

Data Analysis Plan 36

CHAPTER FOUR 37

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 37

Overview 37

Demographic Data 37

Main Data 38

Discussion of Results 42

vii
CHAPTER FIVE 45

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 45

Overview 45

Summary 45

Conclusions 46

Recommendations 47

Areas for Further Research 47

REFERENCES 48

APPENDICES 55

Appendix A: Test Items 55

Appendix B: Sample Checklist 57

Appendix C: Lesson Plan 58

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Gender Distribution of Participants (n=40). 37

Table 2: Causes of poor hand-writing among Tumu Basic four (4) leaners

(n=40). 38

Table 3: Pre-intervention results (n=40) 39

Table 4: The extent to which early preparatory writing activities improves

writing abilities (n=40) 40

Table 5: Scores of Post-Intervention Test (n=40) 41

Table 6: Analysis of the pre-intervention and the post-intervention results 42

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Overview

This chapter comprises the background to the study, description of study

area, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research objectives, and

research questions, significance of the study, delimitations, limitation of the

study and organization.

Background to the Study

Writing is considered an imperative skill for successful language

development. Its importance increases when it comes to writing in English

Language which is widely used for international communication and

comprehension (Fareed, Ashraf, & Bilal, 2016). According to Deane (2018),

writing is the most significant development in human history. It is a way of

exchanging knowledge, information, thoughts and opinions with other countries

of the world, and from one generation to another.

One’s ability to write in a way that is both legible and efficient affects

school performance and academic advancement because writing is the primary

means for learners to communicate and display what has been learnt to their

teacher. Legible handwriting is also necessary for people to carry out academic

activities. Difficulties with handwriting on the other hand can interfere with

related writing process such as planning and generating ideas. Practice of

teaching handwriting is centered largely on issues relating to form and quality.

1
 Fluent and proficient writing abilities are crucial in our increasingly

technical and literate society. While digital tools have become common, writing

with paper and pen or pencil is the preferred tool for learning to write at schools,

especially in the early grades (Santangelo & Graham, 2016). It is still considered

a cultural technique not only for fulfilling academic requirements, but also in

everyday life when writing a note or writing a shopping list (Wicki, Geiger &

Muller, 2014). In order to develop handwriting skills, children must begin

building their foundation in kindergarten and elementary grades (Puranik,

Petscher, Otaiba, & Lemon, 2018).

According to Cole and Feng (2015), performance in the development of

language success is subject to enhancement in writing skills. Writing is often

seen as part of teaching and learning the grammar and syntax of English, which

consequently undervalue the significance and nature of writing and influences

its development. Writing is an incredibly complex cognitive task that demands

its learners to have mastery of the different factors. These factors differ from

the learner's academic history and personal interest to particular linguistic,

psychological and cognitive phenomenon (Mitchell, 2018).

With respect to English writing skills, learners in government schools are

not so fast and well in these skills, and still, they are facing complexities in this

particular domain. Majority of learners at school level are unable to comprehend

this writing skill properly. They face numerous challenges in English Language

subjects particularly in writing skills (Ali, Javed, & Shabbir, 2017). A similar

observation was given by Alvi, Haider, Aziz, and Rahman, (2020). The literacy

rate in the government elementary schools of Ghana concerning English

2
Language skills and mainly writing skills is not encouraging (Awan & Nawaz,

2015). No cohesion and coherence among sentences were found in their English

writing (Asif, Bashir, & Zafar, 2018). It is clear that in spite of the enormous

value of English writing skills in academic and social life, a significant

percentage of Ghanaian school learners mainly at elementary level have poor

writing skills in English subject (Ali, Ahmad, Manzoor, & Naseer, 2014).

During Extended Teaching at Tumu Basic School class four (4), a farming

community within the Sissala West District in the Upper West Region of Ghana,

the researcher observed that some learners in Basic four (4) of Tumu Basic have

problems with handwriting, more specifically poor spacing in between words

and mixing of both lowercase and uppercase letters when writing. In this regard,

the researcher decided to embark on research to engage Basic four learners of

Tumu Basic School in early preparatory writing activities in order to improve

upon their handwriting.

Description of Research Area

This study was carried out in Tumu Basic School, located at the

community. Tumu is a farming and trading community located in the Sissala

East Municipal of Upper West Region. Tumu Basic School has a population of

two-hundred and twenty-five (225) learners of which one hundred and fifteen

(115) are males and one hundred and ten (110) are females. Also, Tumu Basic

school have sixteen (16) regular teachers and five (5) non- teaching staff. In

Tumu Basic four (4), there are forty (40) learners in the class consisting of

twenty-three (23) Males and seventeen (17) female learners respectively.

3
 Tumu is the administrative capital of the Sissala East Municipality in the

Upper West Region of Ghana. It is a growing town with a population that

depends largely on farming activities such as the cultivation of cereals, legumes,

and vegetables, alongside petty trading in the local markets. The majority of

households have modest incomes, which sometimes limits their ability to fully

provide for their children’s educational needs.

Tumu Basic School is a government school that serves children from the

surrounding community. The school has a fairly large enrolment compared to

other nearby schools. It has several classroom blocks, a head teacher’s office,

and a staff common room. However, there are challenges such as limited

classroom furniture, inadequate textbooks, and the absence of specialized

facilities such as a library and an ICT laboratory. These shortcomings affect the

smooth delivery of teaching and learning, particularly in literacy-related

subjects.

In Basic Four, where the research was carried out, the classroom is fairly

spacious, but learners are of mixed abilities. Some learners perform well in

reading and writing, while others struggle with handwriting, spelling, and

sentence construction. Teachers employ a variety of strategies to engage

learners, but the lack of sufficient teaching and learning materials sometimes

hinders progress.

Statement of the Problem

Observation and test conducted by the researcher indicated that, learners

in Tumu Basic four (4) have poor handwriting. This problem was identified in

the classroom where an observation was made on learners writing exercises and

4
assignments, and it was found out that, out of 40 learners, 32 learners were

having poor handwriting. Thus, 20boys and 12girls representing 80% of the

total number of learners in the class. This is also reflected in their note books.

Poor handwriting among learners has negative impact on the self-esteem and

worthiness of the learners. They feel demoralized during examination which

consequently lead to their poor performance in examination. Thus, this study

seeks to use early preparatory writing activities to improve on the handwriting

skills of Basic four (4) learners of Tumu Basic School in the Sissala West

District.

The ability to write well is not only a hallmark of literacy, but also an

essential aid to individual progress and there is a growing interest in the world

today as to the most effective method of teaching children to write legibly.

Many of the basic problems involved in handwriting have been studied for

centuries and much have been learned about difficulties in learning to write

well. In this regard, at Tumu Basic school, I saw that many basic four learners

have problems with handwriting so I decided to embark on research in engaging

them in early preparatory writing activities in order to improve upon their

handwriting.

Purpose of the Study

The study aims at improving the writing abilities of learners at Tumu basic

four (4). Also, this study aims to investigate the causes of learner’s inability to

write and the extent to which the use of the early preparatory writing activities

improves the writing abilities of learners.

5
Objectives of the Study

This study is guided by the following research objectives:

1. To identify the causes of Tumu Basic four learner’s difficulty in writing

2. To examine how the use of early preparatory writing activities can improve

the writing abilities of Tumu Basic four (4) leaners.

Research Questions

This study seeks to address the following research questions;

1. What are the causes of basic four (4) learners of Tumu Basic school poor

handwriting?

2. To what extent does the use of the early preparatory writing activities

improve the writing abilities of Tumu Basic four (4) leaners?

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study is to bring out the benefit teachers and

learners and the community will derive. The use of the early preparatory writing

activities method in teaching English writing to improve the learners’ writing

abilities and sustain their interest in writing, help teachers use the appropriate

methods and materials in teaching to make the teaching of English language

especially writing easy for them and finally serves as a reference material for

future research work and a blue print for policy makers to formulate appropriate

English language literacy strategies that will improve the writing abilities of

basic school learners.

6
 The study seeks to help teachers adopt appropriate teaching methods and

instructional materials that align with learners’ levels and needs. By

incorporating learner-centered strategies and relevant teaching aids such as

flashcards, writing models, visual prompts, and interactive writing tasks

teachers can make the teaching of English, particularly wr0iting, more

engaging, effective, and accessible. This support not only enhances teacher

performance but also contributes to better learning outcomes for learners. The

study also serves as a reference material for future research in the field of

literacy and language development, and as a blueprint for policymakers and

curriculum developers. It provides practical and evidence-based

recommendations for formulating strategies that can improve the teaching and

learning of writing in basic schools. Ultimately, the findings and suggestions of

this research aim to influence policy decisions, guide teacher training programs,

and foster long-term improvements in English language literacy among

learners.

Delimitations of the Study

The study is focused on learners in Basic four (4) of Tumu Basic School.

The study is also limited to using early preparatory writing activities to improve

on poor handwriting skills among learners of Tumu Basic four (4).

Limitations of the Study

One key limitation of this study was the relatively short time frame

available for implementing intervention measures. This constraint posed

challenges to the smooth execution of the research. To mitigate this, the

7
researcher integrated the intervention into one English Language lesson per

week, ensuring consistent engagement despite the limited duration.

Additionally, the reliability of the study’s outcomes may have been

influenced by the nature of the data collection instrument specifically, the use

of tests. Learner absenteeism during the intervention period potentially affected

the completeness and consistency of the data gathered. This limitation may have

reduced the accuracy of the findings, compromised the validity of the results,

and restricted the extent to which the conclusions can be generalized to broader

educational contexts.

Another limitation of the study was the lack of standardized handwriting

assessment tools. While the researcher designed pre- and post-tests to evaluate

learners’ handwriting, these tools were not benchmarked against national or

international standards, which may affect the comparability of results. The study

was conducted within a single classroom context, limiting the diversity of

learner backgrounds, instructional styles, and environmental factors. This

narrow scope may restrict the generalizability of findings to other schools or

regions. The intervention period was relatively short, and long-term retention of

improved handwriting skills was not assessed. Without follow-up data, it is

unclear whether the gains observed were sustained over time.

Finally, the study relied heavily on teacher-led observation, which may

introduce subjective bias despite the use of structured checklists.

8
Organization of the Study

The entire study is divided into five chapters, chapter one discusses the

background to the study, description of the study area, statement of the problem,

purpose of the study, research objectives, Research questions, significance of

study, delimitations of the study, limitations of the study and organization of the

study. Chapter two discussed the literature review, conceptual review,

theoretical frame work, empirical review, and summary which includes courses

of poor handwriting and the methods of teaching handwriting. Chapter three

addressed the methodology employed for the study, it has three sub-headings,

such as research design, population, sample and sampling

techniques/procedure, research instruments, research procedure (pre-

intervention, intervention, and post intervention). Ethical consideration, data

analysis. Chapter four deals with results and discussion of results of the study,

it includes: demographic data, main data, and discussions. Finally, chapter five,

we have summary, conclusions, recommendations and areas for further

research.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

This chapter examines the related literature to the study. It discusses about

what authorities in the field of learning have come out with to serve as

theoretical basics of this research work.

Conceptual Review

Handwriting is the style or manner of writing by hand, especially with a

pen or pencil, as distinct from typed or printed text (Encyclopedia, 2024). At

different times in history, the quality of handwriting has varied considerably.

Ancient Roman handwriting included Roman cursive and more calligraphic

rustic capitals, the latter of which formed the basis of modern capital letters and

was often used in stone inscriptions (Diringer, 1968). In academic settings

today, learners with legible and efficient handwriting may receive better marks,

while poor handwriting can hinder communication, making it difficult for

examiners to understand responses (Alonso et al., 2009).

Encyclopedia, (2024) defines writing as a set of visible or tactile signs

used to represent units of language in systematic way with the purpose of

recording messages which can be retrieved by everyone who knows the

language in question and the rules by virtue of which its units are encoded in

the writing system. According to Crystal (2006) writing is define as the visual

representation of speech through the use of graphic symbols.

10
 Daniels (1996) defines writing as a system of more or less permanent

marks used to represent an utterance in such a way that it can be recovered more

or less exactly without the intervention of the utterer. writing is commonly

defined as a method of communication (Crystal,2006). It uses marks that we see

and understand, the marks we use to write English are the letters of the alphabet.

They stand for sounds.

Causes of Poor Handwriting

Writing is one of the four basic aspects of English language, the other

three being speaking, listening and reading. Writing is a form of visible marks

that are related by connections to some structural level of language. Chivers

(1991) explain that poor handwriting is a deficiency in the ability to write, but

also coherence. Poor writing is a transcription disability, meaning that it is a

writing disorder associated with impaired handwriting. Nicolson and Fawcett

(2011) it often overlaps with other learning disabilities such as speech

impairment, attention deficit disorder, or developmental coordination disorder.

Children with poor handwriting can often write on some level and may

experience difficulty with other fine motor skills, such as tying shoes". Children

with poor handwriting often have unusual difficulty with spelling which in turn

can cause writing fatigue.

Oche (2012), handwriting is not an isolated activity; neither can it be seen

solely as a motor activity. It is part of the language activity. Again, he added

that there is handwriting that is clear and easy to read, and then there is

handwriting that hard to read. Bad handwriting sometimes includes sentences

that are poorly punctuated, misuse of upper- and lower-case letters. Richards

11
(2009), poor handwriting can have negative impact on the success of the

learners in school. Berninger (2011), writing is often slanted due to holding a

pen or pencil incorrectly.

Bossaert (2011) explains that learners poor handwriting is as a result of

inappropriate use of lower case and upper-case letters mixed for example

mixing capital with small letters giRLs, BaG doG, and so on. He concluded that

the causes poor handwriting among learners with learning disabilities is a

biologically bases disorder with genetic and brain bases. More specifically, it is

a working memory problem. Berninger (2011) said in dysgraphia, children with

learning disabilities fail to develop normal connections among different brain

regions needed for writing.

Research study carried out by Denise and Aimee (2014) on the research

topic identifying problems that contribute to hand writing problems experienced

by learners at a higher education in higher institution at South Africa came out

with the causes of poor hand writing, factors have been describe as

dysfunctional in hand writing such as flexed posture, resting both forearms on

the table, tight pen grasp with hyperextension of the distal interphalangeal (DIP)

join of the index/middle finger and flexion of the interphalangeal (IP) thumb

joint to 900, indicating poor stability in the hand 11 or some joint laxity 21, were

seen in 50% of learners when writing.

Other studies have also highlighted environmental and instructional

causes. Graham, Harris, and Fink (2000) emphasized that insufficient early

handwriting instruction contributes significantly to poor handwriting skills in

later grades. Similarly, Medwell and Wray (2008) reported that teachers who

12
do not provide structured handwriting practice fail to equip learners with the

motor fluency required for neat and legible writing.

Psychological factors have also been implicated. Feder and Majnemer

(2007) explained that children with low motivation, poor attention span, and

low self-esteem are more likely to demonstrate poor handwriting skills. They

further argue that handwriting problems may be compounded by anxiety during

classroom tasks, leading to avoidance behaviors.

Moreover, environmental factors such as overcrowded classrooms, lack

of proper desks, and inadequate learning materials can worsen handwriting

difficulties (Santangelo & Graham, 2016). In contexts where learners share

materials or write under uncomfortable classroom conditions, handwriting tends

to suffer.

The Methods of Teaching Handwriting

Researchers became interested in scientifically testing the effectiveness

of various procedures for teaching handwriting around 80 years ago (Kimmons,

1937). Since then, about 10 large-group handwriting intervention studies have

been conducted on average each decade (Santangelo & Graham, 2016), with an

undetermined number of single participant design interventions undertaken

during the last 50 years or so (Graham & Weintraub, 1996).

Research conducted have taught about how to effectively teach

handwriting to school-aged children. In terms of big picture conclusions,

Santangelo and Graham (2016) argued that explicitly and directly teaching

handwriting enhances both fluency and legibility; individualizing handwriting

13
instruction as well as using technology to teach it can improve handwriting

performance. Interventions designed to improve handwriting through

enhancing motor skills are ineffective and handwriting instruction results in

general improvements on other aspects of writing such as sentence construction,

text length, and text quality. At a more micro-level, handwriting instructional

research has identified a variety of procedures that are important for teaching

handwriting effectively (Graham, 2010). These include but are not limited to:

Modeling how letters are formed when teaching them, using visual cues such as

numbered arrows to guide letter formation, providing practice tracing, copying,

and writing letters from memory, encouraging learners to evaluate and correct

their letter production efforts during practice, reinforcing learners successful

letter production efforts, providing corrective feedback and giving learners

plenty of opportunities to write to enhance handwriting fluency, asking children

to set goals for improving their handwriting, implementing appropriate learning

procedures for left-hand writers (Graham & Miller, 1980).

Teaching learners how to position their paper and how to hold their pencil

or pen in a comfortable and efficient manner, allotting 75 to 100 minutes of

handwriting instruction per week in grades one through four and providing extra

handwriting instruction to learners who experience difficulty mastering this

skill (Santangelo & Graham, 2016). Despite the advances made in scientifically

identifying effective practices for teaching handwriting, there is still much to be

learned.

14
 The handwriting instructional database is generally thin. For instance, in

their comprehensive review of true- and quasi-intervention studies, Santangelo

and Graham (2016) found only 20 investigations that tested the effectiveness of

providing explicit and direct handwriting instruction, and there were less than

10 studies testing the effectiveness of each of the following: individualization,

technology, and motor instruction.

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework, according to Maxwell (2005), assists the

researcher in understanding what problems have been encountered with existing

research and theory, what contradictions the researcher has found in existing

views.

Social Theory of Writing

The theory adopted for the study was Vygotsky Social theory of writing.

This theory stressed the fundamental role of social interaction in the

development of literacy among children. Given the significant role that the

social environment plays in children’s literacy development, it was a natural

choice for the study to use social theory of writing as the theoretical framework

in order to understand the complex ways children come to acquire literacy when

they are given the required opportunities. The assumptions from this theory

guided the researcher to model for learners to learn and use the sand tray, writing

in the air, drawing and coloring whiles learners watch how the modelling

activities are conducted for them to imitate what they have seen.

15
 According to Goodman (2001), elements of literacy that are acquired are

easily performed, but more difficult to discuss. Therefore, a child will never

fully master their use and understanding of literacy if only taught in formal

schooling, although this is an important aspect of how children come to learn

the necessary skills to being literate. Children also acquire these skills while

being exposed to different models in natural settings, which help them to

develop their own opinions and beliefs about literacy.

Gees studies are consistent with that of Goodman (2001) who writes that

initial literacy is not taught in the classroom; rather, children come to find and

discover their own literacy and language by living and participating in an

environment where literacy and language is present. Children come to acquire

literacy by being given opportunities to use language in various situations for

different functions. These opportunities give learners a chance to see the

importance in writing instruction, and are learned even before the child enters

formal schooling.

Literacy can occur even before school years, as children explore their own

uses of language. Teachers should take into consideration that not all learners

come from mainstream backgrounds and bring the same early literacy skills to

school. Also, Meier (2003), writes that despite their diverse backgrounds, all

children bring to school rich linguistic abilities acquired through social

interaction in their homes and communities. Most children come into school

with early writing skills learned by watching their parents and by being active

members of society. A part of this knowledge is gained through bedtime stories

(Meier, 2003).

16
 Bedtime stories is a time when children are able to listen to their parents

read, and begin to understand the fundamentals of both oral and written

language. This type of social interaction begins to allow learners the knowledge

of what authors do, and how they write with letters in order to communicate.

The understanding of literacy being a social practice that occurs in social

settings is described in the Sociocultural Learning Theory.

Based on the social theory of writing teachers have to create a conducive

learning environment which allows learners to expressed themselves and

interact with one another, teachers have to also know that children come from

different homes those from mainstream and those from no mainstream and these

children learn literacy skills or already have some knowledge on literacy before

school years.

The theory also helps teachers to model for learners to learn and using the

sand tray, writing in the air, drawing and coloring learners watch how the

teacher model these activities and then imitate what they have seen and they are

able to model these activities.

Also based on the social theory of writing, reading bedtime stories help

children listen to their parents read and begin to understand the important of

both oral and written language and this help child to know what authors is

saying and how they write with letters in order to communicate.

The social theory also talks about giving children the free well to explore

their natural environment, so the researcher sends the learners out of class room

for them to practice writings in the sand using the sand tray, writing in the air

which gives them the free well to write.

17
Empirical Review

Agyeman and Boateng (2019) conducted a study to support learners at St.

Peters R/C Primary School in improving their handwriting through early

preparatory writing activities. Thirty-three pupils were purposively selected for

the study. Data were collected using interviews, observations, and tests, and

results from pre-tests and post-tests were presented in frequency distribution

tables. The findings revealed a marked improvement in learners’ handwriting

skills after exposure to the intervention. Analysis showed enhanced legibility

and form, suggesting that targeted instructional strategies like preparatory

writing exercises can effectively address handwriting challenges among young

learners.

In a similar vein, Tandoh (2023) carried out a study at Sorbelle Basic

School aimed at enhancing learners’ handwriting using early preparatory

writing activities. Thirty-two pupils were selected through purposive sampling,

and the study adopted an action research design. Observation and tests were

used to gather data, which were analyzed using frequency distribution tables.

The results demonstrated significant progress in learners’ handwriting abilities

following the intervention.

Reflections on Agyeman and Boateng’s (2019) work emphasize that

consistent engagement with structured pre-writing tasks not only improves

handwriting but also boosts learners’ confidence and motivation toward writing.

Their study highlighted that when children are introduced to handwriting

through gradual and engaging preparatory activities, they tend to develop

18
neatness, appropriate spacing, and proper letter alignment—key elements for

effective writing development.

Furthermore, Johnson et al. (2020) explored the effectiveness of

structured handwriting interventions in a cohort of 40 learners at Maplewood

Academy. Their study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining

qualitative interviews with quantitative pre-test and post-test data. The findings

indicated a significant enhancement in both handwriting legibility and speed,

emphasizing the role of structured practice.

In addition, Lee and Chen (2021) investigated handwriting development

in early childhood education settings. Their research involved 50 preschool

children and highlighted the positive impact of playful writing activities on

handwriting skills. The use of games and interactive techniques resulted in

measurable improvements as evidenced by pre- and post-intervention

assessments.

Last but not least, Smith and Taylor (2022) conducted a longitudinal study

over three years, focusing on handwriting progression among young learners in

various educational settings. Their research involved 100 learners and

demonstrated that consistent handwriting instruction significantly improved not

only legibility but also overall writing confidence among learners.

19
Summary of Related Literature

This chapter has been discussing what other authors or researchers think

of handwriting, causes of poor handwriting and the methods of teaching

handwriting.

Chapter Two reviewed literature on handwriting development, focusing

on theoretical, conceptual, and empirical perspectives. Vygotsky’s Social

Theory of Writing highlighted the importance of social interaction, modeling,

and early exposure to language in literacy development. The chapter identified

several causes of poor handwriting, including learning disabilities, poor posture,

incorrect pencil grip, and neurological factors. It defined handwriting as a form

of written communication and emphasized that effective teaching methods such

as direct instruction, modeling, guided practice, and use of technology can

improve handwriting skills. Empirical studies reviewed showed that early

preparatory writing activities and guided writing significantly improved

learners’ handwriting performance.

20
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Overview

This chapter deals with the process as used in conducting the research.

Information on this chapter ranges from the Research Design, Population,

Sample and Sampling Technique/Procedure, Research Instruments, Research

Procedure, Ethical considerations, to data analysis plan.

Research Design

According to Blakstad (2016), research design refers to the overall

strategy that a researcher chooses to integrate the different components of the

study coherently and logically, thereby, ensuring it effectively addresses the

research problem; it constitutes the blueprint for the collection, measurement,

and analysis of data.

The research design used for the study was action research. Action

research is ''a systematic approach to investigation that enables people to find

effective solutions to problems they confront in their everyday lives'' (Stringer

2014: p.277). The researcher, therefore, in an attempt to find immediate

solution to the problem, resorted to the use of action research design. This action

research was used to investigate into learner’s poor performance in English

Language, specifically in writing. Action research is situational. That is, it is

concerned with diagnosing a problem in specific content and attempting to solve

the problem.

21
 Again, Action research is self- evaluative. That is, modifications are

continuously evaluated within the ongoing situation. The ultimate objective

being to improve practice in some way or the other. It is also participatory, that

is, the team themselves take part directly or indirectly in assigning and

implementing research. Also, it requires a constant monitoring in a step-by-step

processing order, a varying period of time and by a variety of mechanism

(example, questionnaire, interview, observation, class exercise, quiz, case

study, etc.) to ensure feedback. Action research has also got a weakness of

being time consuming. The weakness of action research being time consuming

lies in the fact that the process involves several continuous cycles of planning,

acting, observing, and reflecting, each of which requires sufficient time to

complete before moving on to the next stage. Since action research is self-

evaluative, the researcher must constantly monitor and gather data through tools

such as interviews, questionnaires, observations, and class exercises, which

prolong the process. In addition, teachers conducting action research often have

to balance their normal teaching duties with research activities, making it more

demanding. Furthermore, since the goal of action research is to bring about

meaningful change in practice, it usually requires a longer period to test,

evaluate, and refine interventions. The need for careful documentation, data

analysis, and reflection also adds to the time requirement, making action

research more time intensive than traditional research methods.

22
Population

According to Saunders et al. (2012), population is the complete set of

cases from which a sample is selected. Population refers to the aggregate of

persons or objects under investigation (Krieger, 2012). The target population

for the study is learners of Tumu Basic four (4) and the teachers in the school.

The basic four (4) learners consist of 40 learners, comprising twenty-three (23)

boys and seventeen (17) girls.

Sample and Sampling Technique

Bordens and Abbott (2002) defined a sample as a group of individuals

chosen to represent a larger population. Moser and Kalton (2001) also defined

sampling as a technique used to select a group of people from a population. In

this study, a sample size of 40 learners was selected using the purposive

sampling technique.

Purposive sampling, also known as judgmental or selective sampling, is a

non-probability sampling technique where researchers choose participants

based on their criterion-based characteristics that are believed to be particularly

informative for the research question (Palinkas et al., 2015). Unlike random

sampling, purposive sampling allows researchers to intentionally select

information-rich cases that will provide deeper insights into the phenomenon

under study (Patton, 2002).

The idea for employing the purposive sampling is based on the fact that

purposive sampling selects samples in a deliberate manner in that the sampled

participants are relevant to the study (Bryman, 2012). The rationale for using

23
this sampling technique in selecting the participants was to enable the researcher

focus only on learners who are facing writing difficulties. To achieve this,

sentences were written boldly and legibly on the chalkboard for learners to write

in their writing books. The researcher did not use simple random sampling

because the outcome may include some or more learners who write well than

those with writing challenges. Since the purpose of this study is to help improve

the writing ability of learners, only learners with writing difficulties were

selected for the study.

Research Instruments

The instruments here refer to the various methods and techniques used by

the researcher in collecting data or information on the topic under study. The

instruments employed for the study were observation and test. The instruments

refer to the methods and tools employed by the researcher to collect relevant

information for the study. In this research, two instruments were developed and

used: tests and observation. These were carefully designed to provide both

quantitative and qualitative data on the learners’ handwriting challenges and the

effectiveness of the intervention.

Test

In this study, the test served as a primary instrument for diagnosing

learners’ handwriting challenges and evaluating the effectiveness of the

intervention. Arikunto (2012:66) defines a test as a tool or procedure used to

measure student performance through a set of structured methods and rules.

Within the context of action research, tests are particularly valuable for

assessing how well a topic or skill has been learned and for determining the

24
impact of instructional strategies designed to address specific learning

difficulties.

To develop the test instrument, the researcher created two sets of

assessments: a pre-test and a post-test. These were carefully aligned with the

research objectives, focusing on learners’ ability to write legibly and within a

given time frame. The test items consisted of short, simple sentences written

boldly and clearly on the chalkboard. Learners were instructed to copy these

sentences into their exercise books. This format was chosen to ensure

accessibility and consistency across all participants, regardless of their reading

proficiency.

The pre-test was administered before the intervention to identify learners

who struggled with handwriting. It provided a baseline for measuring the extent

of each learner’s difficulty, particularly in terms of legibility, spacing, and time

management. Based on the results, the researcher was able to select learners

who required targeted support. After the intervention implemented during

weekly English Language lessons a post-test was conducted using similar

sentence structures. This allowed for a direct comparison of performance before

and after the intervention, highlighting any improvements in handwriting skills.

Beyond measuring academic progress, the test scores also served as

feedback tools for both the teacher and the learners. They helped the teacher

organize future instructional activities and provided learners with insight into

their own development. The scores formed the basis for guidance and further

support, especially for those who continued to face challenges. Despite its

usefulness, the test instrument faced limitations, particularly due to learner

25
absenteeism. Some students were not present during either the pre-test or post-

test phases, which affected the completeness and reliability of the data.

Nevertheless, the test remained a crucial tool for quantifying the impact of the

intervention. See Appendix A for test items.

Observation

Observation was employed as a complementary instrument to the test,

offering rich qualitative insights into learners’ handwriting behaviors and the

contextual factors influencing their performance. In educational research,

observation is widely recognized as a method for collecting firsthand

information about human actions and interactions within real-life settings

(Cohen et al., 2011; Mutch, 2005; Neuman, 2007; Wallen & Fraenkel, 2001).

Creswell (2009) further describes observation as a process of gathering open-

ended data by watching people and events in the research environment.

For this study, the researcher used both structured and unstructured

observation techniques. The structured observation was guided by a prepared

checklist, which allowed the researcher to systematically record specific

behaviors relevant to handwriting development. These included learners’

writing posture, pencil or pen grip, spacing between words and letters, letter

formation, and overall legibility. The checklist ensured consistency and focus

during the observation sessions, particularly when comparing behaviors before

and after the intervention.

In addition to the checklist, unstructured observation was used to capture

broader patterns and unexpected behaviors that might not fit neatly into

predefined categories. This approach gave the researcher the flexibility to note

26
down observations that were contextually significant, such as learners’

emotional responses to writing tasks, their level of engagement, and any signs

of frustration or improvement. These qualitative insights enriched the study by

revealing underlying factors that may influence handwriting development, such

as confidence, motivation, and classroom dynamics.

Observation was conducted during regular classroom activities, both

before and after the intervention. The researcher paid close attention to how

learners approached writing tasks, noting any changes in technique or attitude

over time. This method was particularly useful for understanding why some

learners struggled with handwriting despite receiving the same instructional

support. For instance, poor posture or incorrect grip could hinder progress, even

if the learner understood the writing task.

One challenge encountered during observation was the subjective nature

of interpreting behaviors. While the checklist helped maintain objectivity, the

unstructured notes required careful reflection to avoid bias. Additionally, the

limited time available for observation due to the intervention being

implemented during only one English Language lesson per week restricted the

depth of data that could be collected. Nonetheless, observation proved to be an

invaluable tool for capturing the nuances of learners’ handwriting development

and for validating the findings obtained through testing. See Appendix B for the

observation checklist.

27
Research Procedure

The research procedure was organized into three main phases: pre-

intervention, intervention, and post-intervention. During the pre-intervention

phase, a diagnostic test and structured observation were conducted to identify

learners struggling with handwriting, focusing on legibility, spacing, and

writing speed. This initial assessment provided a baseline for selecting

participants and understanding the nature of their challenges. The intervention

phase involved implementing early preparatory writing activities during weekly

English Language lessons, aimed at improving fine motor skills, letter

formation, and overall handwriting fluency. Throughout this phase, the

researcher continued observing learners to monitor progress and adjust

strategies as needed. In the post-intervention phase, a follow-up test and final

observations were carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention,

comparing results with the initial data to determine improvements in

handwriting and writing behavior.

Pre-intervention

At this stage the researcher intended to find out the nature of the learner’s

inability to write and to understand their problems or difficulties before coming

out with the main intervention. After teaching a writing lesson, the researcher

conducted a test and realized that, only a few of the learners were able to write

fairly. Sentences were written boldly and eligibly on the chalkboard for learners

to write within a specified time frame. The test was administered to all the 40

learners in the class. The results of the pre-intervention test can be seen in Table

2.

28
Intervention

An intervention refers to a deliberate action, program, or treatment

implemented to address a specific issue or problem (Polit & Beck, 2017;

Herman, Morris, & FitzPatrick, 2016). After the pre-intervention results, the

researcher realized that most of the learners wrote their words closely together

without spacing them. Also, learners' mix both uppercase and lowercase letters

when writing. As a result of these revelations, the researcher designed an

intervention based on early preparatory writing activities. This lasted for three

weeks. The researcher met the learners once a week for one-hour lesson each

Weekly activities in teaching handwriting

WEEK 1

The purpose here was to stimulate keen interest among learners in

learning to write and prepare them to acquire the requisite technique with

reasonable ease. What was essential for this stage is sensory motor control.

Step one: Positioning

During handwriting lessons especially, it is vital to establish the correct

sitting position by requiring learners to do the following:

Learners face the front of the classroom where they can clearly see the

teacher.

Learners sit with high heads, straight backs and both feet on the floor or

footstool if they cannot reach the floor.

29
 Both forearms rest on the table.

The wrist of the writing hand is straight and sits below the line they are

writing on at all times.

The non-writing hand anchors the paper and moves it as needed.

The edge of the paper and the writing arm should be parallel.

Step Two: Pencil Grip

All Learners were made to start out using a pencil that is easy to grip,

erasable and light in weight. Practice opening and closing the middle finger and

thumb. These formed the grip on the pencil. Practice holding a pencil and using

the muscles of the finger and thumb only to move the pencil back and forth.

Step Three: Lines and the Direction in which we Write

In English, writing is done from left to right. At the beginning of every

handwriting lesson, it is a good idea to orient learners to this fact. It is also

necessary to familiarize children with the lines on their page. There are two

points on the handwriting page that learners were made to be aware of. They

are:

The bottom line. This is the line on which all the letters sit.

The top line. This is the line all tall letters reach towards. Children should

not write to touch the top line, as this will cause crowding and reduce clarity.

30
 Learners were made to point to these two lines on their paper and say what

each line is: Bottom line, top line. learners used their pencils to mark each line

with a dot, saying the name of the line as they mark: Bottom line, top line.

WEEK 2

At this stage, as soon as learners had acquired sufficient motor control,

they were introduced to learning the simple form of writing. The aim here

involved the following:

1. To deepen interest in writing

2. To promote the orderly development of the required attitudes and skills.

3. To encourage learners in the use of handwriting for meeting needs and

as an aid of learning and a means of self-expression

Step One

The researcher became the model and wrote boldly and legibly on the

chalkboard in the style in which the learners were to learn to write. The

researcher supplied them with their writing books. He took learners through the

writing of the small letters especially those that end on the base line such as m,

n, o, c which are easier to learn. The researcher demonstrated clearly how the

letters are written.

Here, the researcher re-emphasized that the number the learners see on the

arrows indicated where to begin the letters. The researcher at this point did not

place too much emphasis on the letters produced by learners. Learners were

31
asked to re-write these letters in their writing books while the researcher went

around to ensure that the letters were reproduced correctly in their books.

Step Two

Here, the researcher turned her attention to letters which have extended

tails as b, d, p, y. He ensured that letters which had extended tails going upwards

are written to touch the top red border lines while those which extend

downwards were written to touch the bottom red boarder lines below.

The researcher went around to ensure that the right letters are reproduced

at the appropriate place. He offered help to those who were not able to do it. He

also observed carefully how the learners extended the tail to touch the red border

lines below and above respectively and also gave an assignment.

Step Three

The researcher collected the assignment, went through it and saw that

there had been improvement. He later introduced them to the writing of the

capital letters. The researcher wrote some letters on the chalkboard boldly and

32
legibly; he assigned numbers to arrows to indicate the direction in which the

learners would begin writing the letters. Below are the letters.

WEEK 3

The researcher placed emphasis on improving the quality and speed of

learners writing. The chief aims of the researcher teaching handwriting at this

time included the following:

a. To cultivate a growing interest and pride in achieving a good quality of

writing.

b. To develop the attitude and skills required for writing clearly, legibly and

with reasonable speed.

c. To discover the reasons for individual’s failure to make satisfactory progress

in handwriting and to apply the necessary corrective.

Step One

At this point, the researcher introduced the learners to simple sentences

which brought into display what they have observed. The researcher distributed

printed word tracing simple sentences for learners to practice. The researcher

emphasized on quality and appropriate word spacing. The researcher went

33
around to observe and offered help to those who were finding difficulties. He

saw that there has been an improvement.

Step Two: The researcher wrote a sentence on the chalkboard for example

He told them to write the sentence boldly and legibly in their writing

books while he went around to observe and help those who were finding it

difficult to do it. He later collected the books and marked them. The researcher

gave out their books for learners to further try their hands on it in the house.

Step Three

The researcher took their books and looked at their assignment. He saw a

massive improvement in their handwriting. The researcher again wrote the

sentence below for learners to write while she went around to inspect. He again

emphasized on the speed and quality of learners handwriting

34
 The researcher helped the few who were finding it difficult to do it by

guiding them to write. After the learners had finished with their writing, he took

the books and marked them. In order to go through all her intervention lesson

plans that were prepared to take learners through.

Post-Intervention

After the intervention, the researcher conducted a post test for all the 40

learners in the class. Five simple sentences were printed and given to learners

to re-write in their writing books. Forty minutes was allowed. The scoring was

done to a maximum of ten marks, each sentence carrying two marks with

emphasis on appropriate word spacing and correct use of upper and lowercase

letters. The post-test was to find out whether the intervention put in place had

helped to improve the learners handwriting. The results from post-test are

shown in Table 3

Ethical Considerations

The researcher in conducting this research study strictly adhered to the

following Ethical regulations.

Firstly, awareness was created for participants to know that their

participation was purely voluntary and that they could withdraw at any stage in

the study. The respondents were also assured that any personal information

obtained will be treated confidentially.

Lastly, Participants were made aware that information gathered would be

used only for the purpose for which it was collected. That is, to advance

knowledge in research and where possible, serve as a guide to policy makers.

35
In conducting this study, the researcher observed basic ethical principles.

Participants were made aware that information gathered would be used only for

the purpose for which it was collected that is, to advance knowledge in research

and, where possible, serve as a guide to policy makers. The researcher also

ensured confidentiality of learners’ responses, respect for their dignity, and

voluntary participation throughout the data collection process.

Data Analysis Plan

The data obtained were recorded and analyzed using basic descriptive

statistics such as percentages, frequency and marks obtained (scores). The

results were presented manually in tables.

The analysed results were presented in tables for clarity and easy

interpretation.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Overview

This chapter presents the results and discussions of the study. All data

gathered for the study were organized, analyzed, and followed by discussions

of key issues relating to the findings of the study. The main purpose of the study

was to investigate the causes of learners’ inability to write, and the extent to

which the use of the early preparatory writing activities improves the writing

abilities of learners. This was done through the use of test and observation in

the data collection process.

Demographic Data

Gender Distribution of Participants

Table 1 presents data on the gender distribution of participants who took part in

the study.

Table 1: Gender Distribution of Participants (n=40).

Gender Frequency Percentage (%)

Female 17 42.5

Male 23 57.5

Total 40 100

Source: Field Data, 2025

From Table 1, out of the total participants of 40, 17 of them representing

42.5% were females while (23) participants representing 57.5% were males.

37
The implication of this is that; the male respondents dominated relatively in the

study.

Main Data

Observation results

Research Question One (1): What are the causes of basic four (4) learners of

Tumu Basic school poor handwriting?

To examine the causes of poor hand-writing among Tumu Basic four (4)

leaners, an observation was done by the researcher. The results of the

observation are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 represents the distribution of causes of poor hand-writing among Tumu

Basic four (4) learners

Table 2: Causes of poor hand-writing among Tumu Basic four (4) leaners

(n=40).

Cause Frequency Percentage (%)

Flexed poster 30 75

Incorrect holding of a pen 35 88

Resting both forearms on the table 15 38

Inappropriate use of lower case and upper-case letters 38 95

Tight pen grasp 28 70

Total 40 100

Source: Field Data, 2025

From Table 2, it can be seen that 30 learners (75%), experience poor

handwriting because of flexed posture. Additionally, (35) learners (87.5%),

38
faces writing challenges due to incorrect holding of a pen. Furthermore, the

researcher observed that fifteen (15) learners (37.5%) experience poor

handwriting due to resting of both forearms on the table. In addition, it was

observed that seventeen (38) representing 95%, faces writing challenges

because of inappropriate use of lower case and upper-case letters. Lastly, table

5 indicates that eleven (28) learners representing 70% writes poorly due to tight

pen grasp.

Table 3 represents the distribution of learners Pre‑test scores, revealing that

majority of the learners performed below average.

Table 3: Pre-intervention results (n=40)

Marks Frequency Percentage (%)

0-4 36 90

5-10 4 10

Total 40 100

Source: Field Data, 2025

From Table 3, it is seen that out of 40 learners who took the Pre‑test,

36(90%) of them obtained scores between 0 and 4, while 4(10%) obtained

scores between 5 and 10. The analysis of this result shows that almost all the

learners were not able to write legibly indicating that their writing ability level

was too bad.

39
Research Question Two (2): To what extent does the use of the early

preparatory writing activities improves the writing abilities of Tumu Basic four

(4) leaners?

The results presented in Table 4, represents the observation made by the

researcher concerning the writing abilities of learners in Tumu basic 4 after he

has taken them through early preparatory writing activities.

Table 4: The extent to which early preparatory writing activities improves

writing abilities (n=40)

Statements Frequency Percentage (%)

Clear handwriting 38 95

Mixed both upper case and lower-case letters 5 12.5

Inconsistent letter sizes 3 7.5

Appropriate use of lines in the paper 35 87.5

Source: Field Data, 2025

The Table 4 presents the handwriting characteristics of learners based on

frequency and percentage. A majority of the learners, 38 (95%), demonstrated

clear handwriting, showing that most of them write legibly. About 35 learners

(87.5%) made appropriate use of lines in the paper, indicating good alignment

in their writing. However, some challenges were observed: 5 learners (12.5%)

mixed both uppercase and lowercase letters inappropriately, while 3 learners

(7.5%) showed inconsistent letter size.

40
 Table 5 presents the post-intervention test results of the learners. The data

indicate a marked improvement in performance after the intervention.

Table 5: Scores of Post-Intervention Test(n=40)

Marks Frequency Percentage (%)

0-4 6 15

5-10 34 85

Total 40 100

Source: Field Data, 2025

Base on the results in Table 5, it is seen that out of 40 learners who took

the Post-test, 6(15%) obtained scores between 0-4, while 34(85%) of them

obtained scores between 5 and 10. Base on the Table 5, it can be concluded that

the learners’ writing abilities have been improved massively after they were

taken through the early preparatory writing intervention activities.

The majority of the learners scored within the higher mark range, while

only a few fell within the lower mark range. This shows that the intervention

had a positive effect on learners’ achievement compared to their pre-

intervention results.

41
Comparative Analysis of Pre‑Test and Post‑Test Results

Table 6 compares learners’ performance before and after the intervention,

highlighting significant improvement in their preparatory writing abilities.

Table 6: Analysis of the pre-intervention and the post-intervention results

Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention

Range Frequency Percentage (%) Frequency Percentage (%)

0-4 4 10 34 85

5-10 36 90 6 15

Total 40 100 40 100

Source: Field Data, 2025

The results obtained in Table 6 indicated that 34 learners, that is (85%)

were able to write legibly after they were taken through the intervention

activities as compared to the pre-intervention test results where only four 4

learners representing (10%) were able to write legibly.

The data also showed a reduction in the number of learners who could not

write legibly from (36), representing 90% in the pre-intervention 6 learners,

representing (15%) in the post-intervention.

Discussion of Results

The research explored two central questions: the causes of learners’

handwriting difficulties and the practical activities that could improve writing

abilities. Pre-intervention data from Table 3 revealed that 90% of learners

(n=36) scored between 0–4 marks, indicating severely poor handwriting

legibility, while only 10% (n=4) scored between 5–10. This baseline of

42
inadequate writing ability made communication difficult, as highlighted by

Alonso et al. (2009), who noted that poor handwriting hinders examiners’

understanding and leads to lower marks. Observational data supported these

findings, showing that 75% of learners wrote with flexed posture, 87.5% held

their pens incorrectly, and 70% had a tight pen grasp factors that compromised

fluidity and legibility. These challenges align with Nicolson and Fawcett

(2011), who linked handwriting difficulties to learning disabilities such as

speech impairment and developmental coordination disorder, which can cause

writing fatigue and spelling errors.

The theoretical framework Vygotsky’s Social Theory of Writing provides

a compelling lens through which to interpret these findings. The theory

emphasizes the role of social interaction and modeling in literacy development.

Goodman (2001) and Gee’s studies (as cited) argue that children acquire literacy

naturally before formal schooling, but those from non-mainstream backgrounds

may lack early exposure to oral-written language connections, such as bedtime

stories or storytelling in natural settings. This lack of foundational modeling

was evident in the learners’ poor representation of writing, as discussed by

Crystal (2006) and Daniels (1996). The pre-test results, where 90% of learners

scored below average, reflect these theoretical assumptions and underscore the

need for structured opportunities for imitation, exploration, and feedback in

early literacy instruction.

To address these challenges, the intervention introduced early preparatory

writing activities such as sand tray writing, air writing, drawing, coloring, and

tracing. These activities were designed to correct posture, improve pen

43
handling, and reinforce letter formation through repetition and engagement.

Post-intervention observations in Table 4 showed significant improvements:

95% (n=38) of learners produced clear handwriting, 87.5% (n=35) used lines

appropriately, and only minor issues persisted—12.5% (n=5) mixed cases and

7.5% (n=3) showed inconsistent sizes. Table 5 and Table 6 confirmed these

gains, with 85% (n=34) scoring 5–10 in the post-test and only 15% (n=6)

remaining in the lowest bracket. These results affirm Santangelo and Graham’s

(2016) assertion that explicit instruction—modeling, visual cues, tracing,

copying, and corrective feedback—enhances legibility and fluency. Graham

(2010) further emphasized the importance of individualization and self-

evaluation, both of which were embedded in the intervention.

The intervention’s success also reflects Vygotsky’s emphasis on social

learning. Activities like outdoor sand writing allowed learners to explore freely

and imitate peers in interactive settings, fostering confidence and literacy

development (Goodman, 2001; Meier, 2003). These outcomes mirror empirical

studies cited in Chapter Two: Salia (2023) reported similar improvements

through structured practice, while broader studies by Johnson et al. (2020), Lee

and Chen (2021), and Smith and Taylor (2022) confirmed that consistent,

playful, and guided interventions enhance handwriting legibility, speed, and

confidence. Graham and Perin (2007) noted that poor writing has persisted for

decades, but targeted strategies like those used in this study can yield general

improvements in writing quality. However, the persistence of minor issues such

as inconsistent letter sizes suggests the need for ongoing instruction and further

research, as Santangelo and Graham (2016) acknowledged the limited database

on handwriting interventions.

44
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview

This chapter presents a summary of the study, conclusions,

recommendations and area for further research.

Summary

This study was carried out to help improve the writing abilities of Tumu

basic four learners using early preparatory writing activities. This study aimed

to investigate the causes of learners' inability to write, and the extent to which

the use of the early preparatory writing activities improves the writing abilities

of learners. Action research design was used in this study. A sample of forty

(40) learners were involved in the study. The Purposive and sampling technique

was used to sample the learners. The main instruments used to collect data in

this study were test and observation. The researcher conducted a pre-test among

the learners to find out the nature of the learner’s inability to write and to

understand their problems before coming out with the main intervention. The

researcher also conducted a post-test to find out whether the intervention has

worked.

Key findings

1. Early preparatory writing activities are effective in improving learners

handwriting.

45
2. Handwriting challenges among learners can be addressed through structured

early writing interventions.

3. The use of engaging, hands-on activities in a collaborative environment

allowed learners to explore, imitate, and refine their writing skills.

Conclusions

The study established that early preparatory writing activities are an

effective means of improving learners’ handwriting. Learners who participated

in the intervention demonstrated significant progress, confirming the

effectiveness and reliability of such strategies as highlighted in previous

research. It is evident that handwriting challenges can be mitigated when

structured early writing interventions are implemented in the classroom.

Therefore, incorporating preparatory writing activities into primary school

instruction can play a vital role in enhancing learners’ overall writing

development and academic performance.

Using the early preparatory writing activities in teaching writing as

adopted in this study, is an effective way of improving the writing ability of

basic four learners of Tumu basic school because, the test results of the learners

showed an increased in the number of learners that were able to write legibly

from (12.5%) to (95%), after they were taken through the intervention activities.

This shows that early preparatory writing activities can improve learners'

writing abilities.

46
Recommendations

The following recommendations were made to make the teaching of hand-

writing more effective and to improve on learners' writing abilities;

1. Teachers should make use of early preparatory writing activities.

2. Parents should assist their wards by providing them writing materials.

3. The school authorities in collaboration with Parents Teachers Association

(PTA) should initiate remedial lessons for struggling writers to improve their

writing abilities.

4. Teachers should embark on professional development through short courses,

workshops, orientations and mentoring on effective teaching of hand-

writing.

Areas for Further Research

The following suggestions were made for future research;

A study can be done to investigate the effects of poor hand-writing on the

academic performance of learners. This was done to cover the causes of poor

hand-writing and the extent to which the use of early preparatory writing

activities can improve learners’ hand-writing abilities.

Also, teachers should conduct a study to find ways of improving their

methods of teaching to help improve learners writing skills.

47
 REFERENCES

Agyeman, E. A., & Boateng, R. A. (2019). Improving handwriting through

early preparatory writing activities: A case study at St. Peters R/C Primary

School. Journal of Basic Education Research, 5(2), 45–56.

Ali, A., Ahmad, M., Manzoor, M., & Naseer, M. (2014). Challenges in English

writing skills at school level: A study of Pakistani learners. International

Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 2(3), 1–9.

Alonso, C., Rosa, A., & Fuentes, L. J. (2009). Handwriting performance in

children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(4), 316–321.

Alvi, E., Haider, S., Aziz, F., & Rahman, M. (2020). Exploring writing

challenges among ESL learners: A case study of secondary schools.

Journal of Education and Practice, 11(5), 45–52.

Arikunto, S. (2012). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktik (Revised

ed.). Rineka Cipta.

Asif, M., Bashir, R., & Zafar, S. (2018). Analyzing coherence and cohesion in

Pakistani students’ English writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic

Studies, 14(2), 1–10.

Awan, R., & Nawaz, M. (2015). English language learning difficulties in public

schools: A case study of elementary learners in Pakistan. Journal of

Education and Practice, 6(9), 19–25.

Berninger, V. W. (2011). Evidence-based differential diagnosis and treatment

of dysgraphia in children. Handbook of Learning Disabilities, 2, 345–363.

48
Blakstad, O. (2016). Research design: Definition, types, and how to use it.

Retrieved from [Link]

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2002). Research design and methods: A

process approach (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2002). Research design and methods: A

process approach (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Bossaert, G. (2011). Dysgraphia and handwriting difficulties in children with

learning disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education,

26(2), 163–175.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Chivers, M. (1991). Handwriting problems in the classroom. London: David

Fulton Publishers.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education

(7th ed.). Routledge.

Cole, M., & Feng, J. (2015). Effective writing instruction for elementary

students. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 16, 1–10.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Crystal, D. (2006). How language works. London: Penguin Books.

Daniels, P. T. (1996). The world's writing systems. Oxford University Press.

49
Deane, P. (2018). Writing as a cognitive process: Implications for assessment

and instruction. Educational Testing Service Research Report Series,

2018(1), 1–30.

Denise, F., & Aimee, S. (2014). Identifying problems contributing to

handwriting difficulties among learners in higher education. South

African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44(1), 15–21.

Diringer, D. (1968). The alphabet: A key to the history of mankind (3rd ed.).

London: Hutchinson.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024). Handwriting. Retrieved from

[Link]

Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills:

Problems, factors and suggestions. Journal of Education and Social

Sciences, 4(2), 81–92.

Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency,

and intervention. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(4),

312–317.

Gee, J. P. (2000). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd

ed.). Routledge.

Goodman, K. S. (2001). In defense of good teaching: Creating classrooms that

work. Heinemann.

Graham, S. (2010). Want to improve children's writing? Don't neglect their

handwriting. American Educator, 34(4), 20–27.

50
Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and instruction: A

review of the literature. Reading Psychology, 1(1), 5–30.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for

adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.

Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research:

Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology

Review, 8(1), 7–87.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to

learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning

writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 620–633.

Herman, J., Morris, L., & FitzPatrick, B. (2016). A practical guide to evaluating

teacher effectiveness. Corwin Press.

Johnson, L., Mensah, K., & Owusu, D. (2020). Evaluating structured

handwriting interventions: A mixed-methods study at Maplewood

Academy. International Journal of Educational Development, 38(3),

112–125.

Kimmons, R. (1937). The teaching of handwriting: A historical and

experimental study. University of Chicago Press.

Krieger, N. (2012). Who and what is a “population”? Historical debates, current

controversies, and implications for understanding “population health” and

rectifying health inequities. Milbank Quarterly, 90(4), 634–681.

51
Lee, S., & Chen, Y. (2021). Playful writing activities and handwriting

development in preschool children. Early Childhood Education Journal,

49(4), 567–580.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach

(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2008). Handwriting: What do we know and what do

we need to know? Literacy, 42(1), 10–15.

Meier, D. R. (2003). Learning in the early years: Exploring literacy through

play. Teachers College Press.

Mitchell, R. (2018). Cognitive complexity in writing: Understanding the

learner’s challenge. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(4),

789–796.

Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (2001). Survey methods in social investigation (2nd

ed.). Routledge.

Mutch, C. (2005). Doing educational research: A practitioner’s guide to getting

started. NZCER Press.

Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (2011). Dysgraphia: A specific learning

difficulty. British Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 77–83.

Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (2011). Dysgraphia: A specific learning

difficulty. British Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 77–83.

52
Oche, E. S. (2012). Writing readiness and handwriting difficulties among

primary school pupils. Journal of Educational Research and

Development, 7(1), 45–52.

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., &

Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection

and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration

and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5),

533–544.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).

Sage Publications.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing

evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Health.

Puranik, C. S., Petscher, Y., Otaiba, S. A., & Lemon, C. (2018). Development

of handwriting skills in early childhood education. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 45, 248–258.

Richards, J. C. (2009). Error analysis and second language strategies.

Cambridge University Press.

Salia, M. A. (2023). Structured handwriting practice and learner improvement:

A classroom-based study. Ghana Journal of Educational Practice, 8(1),

40–52.

Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A review of handwriting instruction in the

early grades. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 959–988.

53
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business

students (6th ed.). Pearson Education Ltd.

Smith, J., & Taylor, M. (2022). Longitudinal analysis of handwriting

progression in early education. Journal of Educational Psychology and

Practice, 14(1), 33–50.

Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Tandoh, M. A. (2023). Enhancing handwriting skills through early preparatory

writing activities: An action research at Sorbelle Basic School. Ghana

Journal of Literacy and Language Education, 7(1), 22–35.

Wallen, N. E., & Fraenkel, J. R. (2001). Educational research: A guide to the

process (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wicki, W., Geiger, V., & Müller, M. (2014). Handwriting in the digital age:

Still a cultural technique. Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 217–

225.

54
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Test Items

Pre-Test Items

Learners should copy the following sentences into their exercise books. These

are short and simple to assess baseline handwriting skills:

- The sun is hot.

- I have a red pen.

- Dogs bark at night.

- We go to school.

- My name is Ama.

Focus Areas for Assessment:

- Letter formation (e.g., clarity of “d”, “g”, “m”)

- Word spacing

- Use of capital letters at the beginning of sentences

- Punctuation (full stop)

- Writing within lines and consistent size

55
Post-Test Items

These sentences mirror the structure of the pre-test but include slightly more

complexity to assess progress:

- The boy runs fast.

- I like to write stories.

- Birds fly in the sky.

- She has a big book.

- We play with our friends.

Focus Areas for Assessment:

- Improved legibility and spacing

- Correct use of uppercase and lowercase letters

- Sentence alignment and neatness

- Speed and fluency of writing

- Reduction in mixing letter cases or crowding

56
Appendix B: Sample Checklist

Learners

Causes Yes No

Flexed poster

Incorrect holding of a pen

Resting both forearms on the table

Inappropriate use of lower case and upper-case letters

Tight pen grasp

57
 Appendix C: Lesson Plan

Date: 20/01/2025 Period: 1st Subject: English language

Time: 9:00 am – 10:00 am Duration: 60 mins Strand: Handwriting Development
Class: Four (4) Class Size: 40 Sub-strand: Handwriting and Written
Expression
Content standard: B1.1.3.1 Indicator: B1.1.31.1. Lesson 1 of 1
Performance Indicator: Learners can Core Competencies: Communication, Creativity,
rearrange scrambled words and identify Critical Thinking, Personal Development
correct spellings
Key words: Handwriting, Grip, Top Lines, Bottom Lines.
PHASE/ DURATION LEARNER ACTIVITIES RESOURCES
Phase 1: Starter - Demonstrate correct sitting posture for writing. Resources:
(Preparing the brain for - Hold a pencil using the correct grip. - Chalkboard
learning) 10 minutes - Identify and mark the top and bottom lines on a - Handwriting
handwriting page. books
Phase 2: Main (new Activity 1: Spelling Race Game - Pencils
learning including - - Teach correct sitting posture: straight back, feet flat, - Line charts or
assessment) 40 minutes forearms on table. sample pages
- Practice pencil grip using thumb and middle finger.
- Introduce writing direction (left to right) and line
awareness.
- Learners mark top and bottom lines with dots and
name them aloud.
Assessment:
- Observe posture and grip.
- Check learners’ ability to identify and mark lines
correctly.
Phase 3: Observe sentence structure, spacing, and legibility.
Plenary/Reflection - Mark assignments and track progress.
(Learner and teacher) 10 - Provide feedback and support to struggling learners.
minutes

58