International Journal of Instruction April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.

2
e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● [Link] p-ISSN: 1694-609X
pp. 671-688

Article submission code: Received: 03/10/2024 Accepted: 10/01/2025

20241003135101 Revision: 31/12/2024 OnlineFirst: 03/02/2025

Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using Zaner-Bloser

and Handwriting Without Tears Methods

Sonam Lhamo
Hongtsho Primary School, Ministry of Education and Skills Development, Bhutan,
sonamlhammo@[Link]
Karma Sonam Rigdel
Corresponding author, Wangbama Central School, Ministry of Education and Skills
Development, Bhutan, ksrigdel2018@[Link]

Handwriting remains an indispensable skill for elementary students, contributing

to motor and cognitive development, as well as academic achievement. However,
many students continue to struggle with handwriting legibility. In recent years,
instructional approaches like Zaner-Bloser and Handwriting Without Tears have
garnered attention for their structured, systematic methods aimed at enhancing
handwriting skills. Therefore, the present study investigated the impact of using
the Zaner-Bloser and Handwriting Without Tears handwriting instruction
techniques on elementary students through a structured intervention, involving
direct instruction and practice, with 34 fourth-grade students from Hongtsho
Primary School. Guided by action research approach, the pre-test/post-tests and
close-ended interviews were used to collect the data. The intervention consisted of
daily handwriting practice sessions over 30 days, focusing on proper letter
formation, spacing, and legibility. The quantitative data was analyzed using
SPSSv25 and qualitative data were analyzed using the thematic analysis of Braun
and Clarke (2006). Quantitative findings showed a significant improvement in
handwriting legibility, with mean scores increasing from 38 (SD = 1.54) in the
pre-test to 135 (SD = 1.26) in the post-test. Moreover, the paired samples t-test
confirmed the statistical significance of this improvement (t(33) = -10.97, p <
.001), with a large effect size of .86. Further, qualitative findings revealed that
most students perceived the handwriting instruction techniques as effective and
beneficial, though a few found them tedious. The action research concludes with
practical implications.
Keywords: fourth-grade, handwriting legibility, handwriting instruction technique,
Hongtsho primary school
INTRODUCTION
Handwriting refers to writing by hand using a pen, pencil, or other writing instrument.
It is a form of communication and expression used by humans for thousands of years.

Citation: Lhamo, S., & Rigdel, K. S. (2025). Handwriting legibility among elementary students using
zaner-bloser and handwriting without tears methods. International Journal of Instruction, 18(2), 671-
688. [Link]
672 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

Pal et al. (2012) define handwriting as a method aimed at communicating with others
through a prevalent knowledge of signs, called characters and letters in languages.
Handwriting can widely vary from person to person, and each individual’s handwriting
is often unique and identifiable. In Bhutan, handwriting is still considered both a means
of communication and a necessary life skill the students must master in writing a letter,
completing an application form, or writing a cheque. Handwriting is still the most
immediate form of graphic communication. Despite the use of digital technology, the
students in the classroom still engage in handwriting exercises such as writing notes,
writing classwork/ homework, and writing a leave application. Namgyal (2021) states
that students must practice legible and correct letter formation in primary school as
children will have to write major assignments and examinations in the later part of their
learning process.
In this regard, it is important to pay attention to students’ handwriting because
children’s handwriting in lower grades is the foundation for higher grades. Feder and
Majnemer (2007) mentioned that children spend 31-60% of their school time engaging
in writing and other fine motor tasks. The researchers mentioned that illegible
handwriting can create a barrier to accomplishing higher-order skills such as spelling
and comprehension. Thus, the development of handwriting is not only important in
building a child’s self-esteem but is considered an essential ingredient for success in
school. Many previous studies have emphasized the continuing importance of
handwriting instruction in lower grades, emphasizing its critical role in cognitive
development and academic performance. For instance, Dinehart and Manfra (2015)
demonstrated that early handwriting skills are closely linked to later academic
achievement, particularly in reading and mathematics, with proficient students
performing better on standardized tests. Additionally, James and Engelhardt (2012)
explored the neural implications of handwriting in young children, finding that
handwriting practice activates brain regions associated with literacy and cognitive
functions, thereby enhancing learning and memory. Further, Medwell and Wray (2014)
examined the impact of digital versus traditional handwriting instruction, revealing that
students practicing traditional handwriting outperformed those using digital tools in
writing fluency and comprehension.
The importance of handwriting is especially pronounced in lower grades, where
students’ writing proficiency underpins their learning journey. Moreover, recent studies
have highlighted the crucial role of handwriting in lower grades, particularly in
kindergarten and primary school (Bonneton-Botté et al., 2023). A study by Ray et al.
(2022) has found that handwriting proficiency in kindergarten students significantly
impacts literacy skills such as writing composition, spelling, word reading, and
phonological skills. Additionally, interventions focusing on handwriting fluency have
been found to enhance writing fluency in K-6 students, emphasizing the importance of
teaching different handwriting programs to improve writing skills (Lopez-Escribano et
al., 2022). Furthermore, studies have indicated that handwriting quality and speed
improve across primary school years, with a small percentage of children showing
unsatisfactory handwriting by the end of primary school, underscoring the need for
continued explicit teaching of handwriting despite the prevalence of technology in
education (Duiser, 2023; Sze & Southcott, 2020). Moreover, gender and grade

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

Lhamo & Rigdel 673

differences in handwriting performance among school children have been observed,

highlighting the importance of regular screening to address handwriting difficulties
early on (Adams & Simmons, 2019).
In light of these findings, this action research (AR hereafter) aims to investigate the
effectiveness of handwriting instruction techniques such as Zaner-Bloser and
Handwriting Without Tears (HWT) on fourth-grade students’ writing legibility at
Hongtsho Primary School. As fourth-graders are the central point of foundation for a
better bridge in the higher grades, they must build better handwriting legibility right
now. In addition, this study also includes the gathering of students’ perceptions through
a close-ended interview, on the impact of the implementation of handwriting instruction
techniques and how much it helped to improve their handwriting. Further, the findings
of this research are significant for teachers, students, parents, and policymakers, as they
identify effective handwriting instruction methods, leading to improved teaching
strategies and academic outcomes. Additionally, the research informs early childhood
education and shapes policies to ensure effective handwriting instruction. Specifically,
this AR aimed to address the following research objectives and research questions:
Research Objectives
1. To investigate the impact of handwriting instruction technique on fourth-grade
students’ writing legibility.
2. To explore students’ perception of the impact of handwriting technique on fourth-
grade students’ writing legibility.
Research Questions
1. To what extent does handwriting instruction technique improve the writing legibility
of fourth-grade students?
2. What are students’ perceptions of the handwriting instruction technique on the
writing legibility of fourth-grade students?
Literature Review
The practice of handwriting instruction techniques in schools seemed to prevail ever
since the establishment of literacy skills in the school curriculum. Alongside,
listening/speaking and reading, handwriting can also play an important role in the
academic performance of the students. Handwriting plays a critical role in the early
grades, influencing spelling efficiency and temporal course (Bonneton-Botté et al.,
2023; Gosse et al., 2021; Pontart et al., 2013). It is a complex activity that involves both
lower-level skills like motor skills and higher-order cognitive processes (Lopez-
Escribano et al., 2022). Teaching different handwriting interventions has been shown to
significantly enhance writing fluency in students, especially when focusing on timed
transcription skills, multicomponent treatments, and performance feedback (Kim et al.,
2021). Weak handwriting skills can hinder academic success, leading to students being
perceived as lazy or unmotivated (Worthington, 2011). Middle-grade students lacking
proficiency in handwriting may not receive explicit instruction to improve, highlighting
the importance of early identification and instructional guidance for enhancing

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

674 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

handwriting legibility, fluency, and formatting in school settings (Lopez-Escribano et

al., 2022; Worthington, 2011). Therefore, emphasizing handwriting skills in lower
grades is essential for overall academic development and success.
According to Graham (1992), teachers need to provide handwriting instruction for
students to establish the habits and patterns that facilitate the development of legible
and fluent writing. This includes teaching students an efficient pattern for forming
individual letters, including modelling the formation of each letter, providing practice,
encouraging self-evaluation, and giving feedback (Graham, 1992). Graham also
mentions that teachers also need to make sure that students develop a reasonable grip
for holding a pen or pencil as well as learn how to properly position the paper they are
writing on. Once a letter is introduced, students should spend a short time carefully
practicing how to form the letter, receive help as needed, and evaluate their efforts.
Individual letters should also be reviewed periodically to reinforce the method for
forming the letter and to provide additional practice and correction as necessary.
Recent studies on handwriting programs have continued to explore various instructional
models and strategies to enhance handwriting skills among students. Bonneton-Botté
(2020) found that integrating digital tablets and apps with traditional handwriting
practice improved students’ engagement and handwriting quality. Moreover, Supriatna
and Ediyanto (2021) demonstrated that multisensory techniques, such as using textured
surfaces and incorporating physical movement, significantly improved handwriting
legibility and speed in children with learning disabilities. Research by Graham et al.
(2020) showed that consistent and structured handwriting practice positively influenced
reading and writing skills, indicating a strong link between fine motor skills and literacy
development. Likewise, Fox (2023) highlighted that specialized training for teachers in
handwriting techniques resulted in better student handwriting performance. Further,
Lopez-Escribano et al. (2022) suggested that handwriting activities enhance memory,
attention, and fine motor coordination in young children. Over the years, numerous
handwriting programs have come into place. Such programs included direct
instructional models where teachers modelled discussion of letter characteristics, and
gave feedback to students (Graham et al., 2000). Other strategies included air tracing,
wet sand, and drawing on each other’s backs (Donica, 2015). Some of the widely used
handwriting curricula include Zaner-Bloser and HWT.
Zaner-Bloser
The Zaner-Bloser handwriting curriculum, established in the early 1900s, has long been
a cornerstone in handwriting education, particularly in the United States. It was
designed to help students develop strong handwriting skills that will serve them well
throughout their education and beyond. The Zaner-Bloser method teaches both
manuscript (printing) and cursive handwriting. It begins with manuscript writing to help
students learn letter formation and progresses to cursive writing once they have
developed sufficient skill. The method emphasizes the correct formation of individual
letters and places importance on proper letter size, shape, and slant. The Zaner-Bloser
method also promotes consistency in letter size and spacing between letters and words,
introducing simple spacing rules: one finger width between words and two finger

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

Lhamo & Rigdel 675

widths between sentences (Zaner-Bloser, 2003b). This method is popularly known for
its structured approach, the program emphasizes the development of fine motor skills
and proper letter formation through a sequential and systematic method. Zaner-Bloser
incorporates multisensory techniques, such as visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic
learning, to reinforce letter shapes and strokes. The curriculum offers a range of
materials, from workbooks to digital resources, to cater to diverse learning styles and
needs. Research has shown that the Zaner-Bloser method not only improves
handwriting legibility and fluency but also supports literacy development by enhancing
students’ ability to read and write efficiently (Zaner-Bloser, 2003b). Its well-rounded
approach, combining traditional practices with modern educational tools, continues to
make Zaner-Bloser a widely adopted and effective program in schools across the United
States. Lam et al. (2024) conducted a study on effectiveness of Zaner-Bloser
handwriting on third-grade handwriting proficiency in Alabama. They found that there
was a positive and statistically significant correlation between the adoption Zaner-
Bloser and the proficiency of learners. Further, schools that adopted Zaner-Bloser
products more extensively showed higher proficiency rates in handwriting among
students.
Handwriting Without Tears
HWT is one of the widely used handwriting curricula in educational settings, including
schools and home-schooling environments (Donica, 2010). Developed by occupational
therapist Jan Z. Olsen, the program emphasizes a multisensory approach, integrating
visual, auditory, tactile, and kinaesthetic learning styles to enhance student engagement
and mastery of handwriting skills (Woodward & Swinth, 2002). This method is also
used by occupational therapists and parents looking to help children and individuals of
all ages improve their handwriting skills engagingly and effectively. The HWT
curriculum utilizes a variety of innovative tools and activities, such as wooden letter
pieces, slate chalkboards, and workbooks with clear, step-by-step instructions. The
curriculum is structured to progress from simple to complex tasks, ensuring that
students build a strong foundation in both print and cursive writing.
According to Olsen (2003), the HWT method consists of three stages: firstly, students
imitate movements the teacher is completing; secondly, students look at a sample and
copy letterforms; and in the third stage, students write letters independently without a
model. Research has shown that HWT not only improves handwriting legibility and
fluency but also supports overall literacy development by reinforcing fine motor skills
and letter recognition. This method of handwriting instruction is well-known for its
child-friendly and multisensory approach to teaching handwriting (Donica, 2015;
Randall, 2018). Teachers and occupational therapists appreciate the program’s user-
friendly design, comprehensive resources, and evidence-based strategies, making it a
preferred choice in schools and clinics worldwide.
Students’ Perceptions of the Handwriting Instruction Technique
Research on students’ perceptions of handwriting instruction techniques, specifically
Zaner-Bloser and HWT, reveals diverse opinions on their effectiveness in improving
writing legibility (Benson et al., 2010). The Zaner-Bloser method, known for its

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

676 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

traditional approach and emphasis on muscle memory through repetitive practice, is

often praised for its structured progression from print to cursive (Zaner-Bloser, 2003b).
Studies suggest that students appreciate the clear guidelines and systematic
reinforcement, which contribute to more legible handwriting (Graham & Weintraub,
1996). In contrast, the HWT program, designed to minimize frustration through
simplified letter forms and multisensory activities, receives favourable feedback for its
user-friendly approach (Donica, 2015). Students report enjoying the less rigid and more
engaging activities, which can reduce anxiety and improve legibility for those who
struggle with fine motor skills (Olsen & Knapton, 2008). Comparative studies indicate
that while both methods have their merits, student preference can significantly influence
outcomes; those who thrive in a structured environment may prefer Zaner-Bloser,
whereas those needing a more relaxed approach may benefit from HWT (Bray et al.,
2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2015; Randall, 2018). Ultimately, the perceived effectiveness of
these techniques on writing legibility is shaped by individual student needs and learning
styles.
Context of the Study
Considering the importance of handwriting for students, a situational analysis was
carried out in Hongtsho Primary School (HPS), particularly on fourth-grade students.
The school is located in Bhutan, a country in Southeast Asia that has received scant
scholarly attention (Rigdel & Thapa, 2024). There are 34 students in fourth-grade,
making the highest number of enrolments in the school. Due to the huge number of
students in the class, teachers have found it challenging to maintain a consistent check
on the writing legibility of these students in almost all the subjects. In addition, it was
also found that these students have been facing a difficult time engaging in large writing
activities, unlike the ones in their former grades. When they reached fourth-grade, they
had to study an additional subject, which meant they had to engage in more writing
activities. The idea of the lack of handwriting legibility of all fourth-grade students
stood as a point of concern for both students’ academic performance and teachers’ role
as a facilitator. Every subject teacher in fourth-grade, had ascertained the prevalence of
this concern. Hence, this AR was carried out to implement a handwriting instruction
techniques and its impact on the writing legibility of fourth-grade students.
METHOD
Research Design
The present study was an action research. According to Mertler (2021), the main goal of
AR is to address local-level problems in practice with the anticipation of finding
immediate answers to questions or solutions to those problems. Furthermore, the
conduct of AR improves education by incorporating change and involving educators
working together to improve their practices. Since educators are integral members of
the research process, it is practical and relevant, allowing educators direct access to
research findings, and it focuses on critical reflection about professional practice
(Mertler, 2021).

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

Lhamo & Rigdel 677

AR was chosen as the design for this study because it allows for a practical, iterative,
and participatory approach to investigating and improving educational practices directly
within the classroom setting. This design is particularly well-suited for addressing the
specific, context-bound challenges faced by the fourth-grade students at HPS regarding
handwriting legibility. By involving teachers actively in the research process, AR
fosters a collaborative environment where educators can implement, observe, and refine
instructional techniques in real-time, ensuring that the interventions are tailored to the
students’ unique needs and learning contexts.
Additionally, AR is valuable for its dual focus on improving practice and generating
knowledge. It enables the researchers to not only assess the immediate impact of the
handwriting instruction techniques on students’ writing skills but also to develop a
deeper understanding of the instructional methods that are most effective in enhancing
handwriting legibility. Figure 1 shows the cyclical nature of AR - planning, acting,
observing, and reflecting - facilitates continuous improvement and adaptation of
teaching strategies, leading to more meaningful and sustainable educational outcomes
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). This design also empowers teachers by involving them
in the research process, promoting professional development, and encouraging
reflective practice (Hine, 2013).

Figure 1
Kemmis & McTaggart Model, 1988
Research Participants and Setting
The participants were selected for this study through a convenience sampling method
which include 34 students in fourth-grade at HPS under Thimphu District. As the school
has only one section of fourth-grade students, all 34 students were chosen as the study
population. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), convenience sampling is a non-
probability sampling process in which the sample is chosen based on the researcher’s
judgment, allowing for a representative sample while saving time and resources. In
fourth-grade, students face a curriculum shift from studying three main subjects
(English, Mathematics, and Dzongkha) in grades PP-III to an expanded syllabus that

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

678 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

includes two additional subjects (Science and Social Studies). This increase in subjects
requires more writing activities, necessitating better handwriting legibility. To
implement the handwriting instruction technique, all the teachers of the fourth-grade
subjects (English, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and ICT) were involved in
guiding the students’ writing process.
Research Instruments
The present study utilized two research instruments to collect the data. The primary
instrument was a handwriting legibility test adapted from Zaner-Bloser and
Handwriting Without Tears. This test was modified for both pre-test and post-test use.
The test consists of 26 alphabets, 26 words, a sentence, and a longer paragraph
consisting of all the alphabets. The longer paragraph consists of 66 words. The total
score for both the pre-test and post-test was 50, assessed based on five criteria: letter
formation, spacing, consistency, neatness, and legibility. Each category was evaluated
out of a total score of 10. Additionally, the study aims to explore students’ perceptions
regarding the implementation of handwriting instruction techniques. To gather their
opinions, a close-ended interview was conducted with 15 randomly selected students.
The researchers developed five interview questions based on the research objectives
(see Appendix C). Both the handwriting legibility test and the close-ended interview
questions were assessed for reliability and validity. The pre-test and post-test questions
were validated by three experts using the Item Objective Congruence (IOC) method
(Turner and Carlson, 2003), yielding an average IOC of 0.96, indicating the items’
validity for the study as this value exceeded 0.75. The close-ended questions were
reviewed by two qualitative research experts and pilot-tested, leading to potential
modifications based on expert feedback and pilot analysis. It is important to note that
the results from the pilot analysis were not included in the final analysis.
Data Collection Procedure
First, approval was sought from the school leader. Then, researchers obtained informed
consent from parents since the students were young, and finally, consent was obtained
from all participants. This ensured that everyone who participated in the study gave
their consent. The entire data collection process took researchers a month. The first
round of data is gathered through conducting a pre-test for 40 minutes. After that,
students were provided and guided through handwriting instruction techniques for a
period of 30 days. Teachers and students convened daily for 40 minutes to focus on
handwriting instruction. During the implementation procedure, every Tuesday, the
teacher demonstrated the correct way of letter formation, spacing between the words,
and space between the sentences through a sample displayed on the wall. A team of five
teachers participated in evaluating the students’ handwriting. On other days of the week,
in each subject, teachers collected handwriting samples from the students, which
included 26 alphabets, 26 words, a sentence, and a longer paragraph of 66 words.
Students were given 20 minutes to copy these samples into their notebooks, and then
continued this practice as homework. The same samples were used every day for 30
days. Post-test data was collected using the same instruments as in the pre-test.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

Lhamo & Rigdel 679

Intervention Procedure
Pre-intervention phase
All fourth-grade students were involved in regular handwriting activities as part of their
curriculum. Before implementing the handwriting instruction techniques, a pre-test was
conducted to establish a baseline for each student’s handwriting legibility. The test
included: Writing all 26 alphabets in both upper and lower case, writing 26 common
words, writing a sentence containing all 26 alphabets, and writing a longer paragraph.
The handwriting samples were evaluated based on letter formation, spacing,
consistency, neatness and overall legibility using a computer program designed to
measure handwriting legibility.
Intervention phase
For one month, students engaged in daily handwriting practice sessions, focusing on
proper letter formation, spacing, and overall legibility. Each session lasted
approximately 40 minutes and was conducted during various subjects to ensure
consistent practice. The instructional methods implemented during the intervention
included several key approaches. Teachers modelled the correct formation of each
letter, providing both visual and verbal guidance to the students. During guided
practice, students wrote under the supervision of their teachers, who offered immediate
feedback and corrections. Independent practice sessions allowed students to reinforce
the skills they had learned by practicing writing on their own. Additionally, multi-
sensory techniques (Supriatna & Ediyanto, 2021; Zaner-Bloser, 2003b) were
incorporated to enhance learning, such as air tracing, using tactile surfaces like
sandpaper letters, and engaging in interactive activities.
The materials used in the intervention included worksheets with structured writing
exercises, handwriting guides, and lined paper to assist with proper letter formation and
spacing. Additionally, tools such as pencils, erasers, and pens appropriate for
handwriting practice were provided to ensure students had the necessary resources for
effective handwriting improvement. Moreover, teachers provided regular feedback on
students’ handwriting, highlighting areas of improvement and providing positive
reinforcement. Students were encouraged to self-evaluate their handwriting and make
necessary adjustments.
Post-intervention phase
After one month of handwriting instruction, a post-test identical to the pre-test was
administered to assess the impact of the intervention. The test required students to write
all 26 alphabets in both upper and lower case, 26 common words, a sentence containing
all 26 alphabets, and a longer paragraph. This comprehensive assessment aimed to
measure any improvements in handwriting legibility and overall writing skills following
the intervention. The post-test handwriting samples were assessed using the same
criteria as the pre-test to ensure consistency in measuring improvements in letter
formation, spacing, alignment, and overall legibility.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

680 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

Data Analysis
In the first phase, the quantitative data were analysed using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSSv25) software to determine the level of students’ handwriting
legibility before and after the implementation of the handwriting instruction technique.
Pre-test and post-test scores for each student were entered into SPSS, focusing on letter
formation, spacing, alignment, and overall legibility. Descriptive statistics, including the
mean and standard deviation, were calculated for both pre-test and post-test scores,
providing an average measure of handwriting legibility and indicating the variability or
spread of scores around the mean. Additionally, a paired sample t-test was conducted to
assess whether the observed improvements in handwriting legibility were statistically
significant or insignificant. Further, Cohen’s d (1988) was used to determine the effect
size between groups for the post-test. Effect size measures the magnitude of differences
between groups. Cohen’s d represents the ratio of the difference between two means in
standard deviation units. According to Cohen (1988), effect sizes can be interpreted as
follows: below 0.2 indicates a small effect, 0.2 to 0.8 a medium effect, and above 0.8 a
large effect.
In the second phase, thematic analysis was used to analyse the qualitative data collected
through close-ended interviews with the students, aiming to gather insights into their
perceptions of the handwriting instruction techniques and their subjective experiences.
The qualitative data was analysed thematically using the six-step process outlined by
Braun and Clarke (2006). These steps include familiarizing with the data, initial coding,
identifying themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the
final report. The two researchers transcribed and coded the data jointly. Following
initial coding, they identified, reviewed, and defined the themes. The compiled
transcriptions, codes, and themes were then sent to some participants for member
checking. According to Creswell and Miller (2000), member checking is crucial for
establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research as it enhances the credibility of the
research process.
FINDINGS
The findings of this AR are presented in two phases. Phase one encompasses the
quantitative findings, while phase two utilizes qualitative data to support the
quantitative findings.
Quantitative Findings
Quantitative findings indicated that there was significant improvement in students’
handwriting after the post-test. Table 1 shows the finding of the descriptive statistical
analysis for the sample group’s achievement score in handwriting legibility. The
descriptive analysis of the handwriting legibility test’s pre-test and post-test results
indicated a substantial improvement in scores. The mean score increased from 38 (SD =
1.54) in the pre-test to 135 (SD = 1.26) in the post-test, demonstrating a significant
improvement in handwriting legibility following the intervention. The higher mean
score in the post-test was the evidence that indicated the impact of handwriting

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

Lhamo & Rigdel 681

instruction techniques on the students’ writing legibility. The standard deviation

decreased from 1.54 to 1.26, suggesting that post-test scores were more consistent.
Table 1
Descriptive analysis of the handwriting legibility’s pre-test and post-test
Tests Mean Standard Deviation
Pre-test 38 1.54
post-test 135 1.26

Table 2 presents the paired samples t-test results, showing a significant improvement in
handwriting legibility from the pre-test (M = 38, SD = 1.54) to the post-test (M = 135,
SD = 1.26), t(33) = -10.97, p < .001. The negative t-value indicates that the post-test
scores are significantly higher than the pre-test scores. The p-value of .000 confirms
that this difference is statistically significant, suggesting that the intervention had a
strong positive effect on handwriting legibility as demonstrated by the large increase in
mean scores and the reduced variability in post-test scores. The effect size, calculated
using Cohen’s d, was .86, indicating a large effect of the intervention (Cohen, 1988).
Overall, these results suggest a strong positive impact of the intervention on
handwriting legibility.
Table 2
Paired samples test for pre-test and post-test handwriting legibility
Mean SD t(33) p Effect size
Pre-test 38 1.54 -10.97 .000
Post-test 135 1.26 .86
Qualitative Findings
To understand students’ perceptions of the handwriting instruction techniques,
responses
from a close-ended interview were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke,
2006). The analysis revealed three key themes: perceptions, perceived benefits, and
challenges.
1. Perception about Handwriting Instructions
The majority of the participants had a positive perception. Students generally perceived
handwriting as important, recognizing the need for clear and legible writing in today’s
age. All 15 students rated the importance of handwriting in today’s age as mostly 5,
indicating a strong recognition of the need to improve writing legibility. While most
students valued the instruction, some had mixed feelings, expressing a desire for more
flexibility and less rigid rules in their handwriting practice. S3 shared,
I wish we could just write the way we want to instead of following all these
rules. It is not fun sometimes.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

682 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

2. Perceived Benefits
Students felt that their handwriting became more readable and visually pleasing,
enhancing their pride and satisfaction. S7 expressed,
This handwriting technique helped me with correct letter formation and spacing
between words. Now my notes look more readable and beautiful.

As they mastered the techniques, some students noted a quicker writing pace due to
their familiarity with letter formation. S11 said,
I used to write really slow, but now I can write faster because I can correctly
form the letters.

Encouragement from teachers and positive reactions from peers boosted students’
confidence and motivation to improve further.
My teacher said my writing is so much better than it used to be. She said it is
easy to read now, and it’s really neat. My friends like my handwriting too.
Students expressed interest in participating in similar programs, showing enthusiasm for
continued improvement. S14 articulated,
I am so happy that my handwriting looks very clean and beautiful, I wish to
participate in similar handwriting techniques again to improve my
handwriting.
3. Perceived Challenges
Some students found the repetitive drills boring and demotivating, preferring variety in
their practice sessions. S8 shared,
I get tired of doing the same activity over and over, I do not prefer repeated
activities, and spending time on such repeated activities bores me.

A few students faced difficulties adapting to new handwriting techniques, feeling

unsure and lacking confidence due to their attachment to previous writing styles.
When I am asked to follow certain handwriting drills, I get confused and lose
my confidence, maybe because I am so much used to my old writing style. But I
promise to practice and improve my handwriting.
DISCUSSION
RQ1
The results of this study indicate that handwriting instruction techniques such as Zaner-
Bloser and HWT methods significantly improve the writing legibility of fourth-grade
students. This finding aligns with existing literature that emphasizes the importance of
structured handwriting instruction in developing legible handwriting (Graham &

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

Lhamo & Rigdel 683

Weintraub, 1996; Lam et al., 2024; Olsen & Knapton, 2008). Both curricula are
designed to develop strong handwriting skills through structured and systematic
approaches, albeit with different methodologies. As noted by Pal et al. (2012),
handwriting is a method aimed at communicating through a common understanding of
characters and letters, which underscores the need for clear and legible writing.
The Zaner-Bloser curriculum emphasizes the correct formation of individual letters and
consistency in letter size, shape, and spacing (Zaner-Bloser, 2003b). It employs a
sequential method that integrates multisensory techniques to reinforce letter shapes and
strokes, which is instrumental in improving handwriting legibility. This aligns with the
importance of handwriting in Bhutan, where it remains a crucial life skill for various
tasks, including writing letters and completing forms (Namgyal, 2021). The structured
approach of Zaner-Bloser, with its focus on fine motor skills and traditional practices,
has shown positive results in developing students’ handwriting fluency and accuracy
(Graham et al., 2000; Lam et al., 2024; Lopez-Escribano et al., 2022). This is
particularly relevant given that handwriting serves as the foundation for higher
academic achievements (Feder & Majnemer, 2007; Dinehart & Manfra, 2015).
Similarly, the HWT program, developed by an occupational therapist, uses a
multisensory approach to make handwriting instruction engaging and effective
(Woodward & Swinth, 2002). By integrating visual, auditory, tactile, and kinaesthetic
learning styles, HWT helps students build a strong foundation in both print and cursive
writing (Olsen, 2003; Donica, 2015). The three-stage process of imitation, copying, and
independent writing, combined with innovative tools and activities, fosters handwriting
legibility and fluency. Research supports that HWT not only enhances handwriting but
also bolsters overall literacy development by improving fine motor skills and letter
recognition (Donica, 2015; Lopez-Escribano et al., 2022). These findings are in line
with the studies by Ray et al. (2022), which show that handwriting proficiency
significantly impacts literacy skills, further highlighting the value of effective
handwriting instruction.
Both methods have demonstrated significant improvements in the handwriting legibility
of fourth-grade students. The structured and repetitive practice in Zaner-Bloser helps
students internalize correct letter formations, while the engaging and multisensory
approach of HWT reduces frustration and enhances motor skills. However, the
qualitative findings indicate that some students do not enjoy the repetitive nature of the
Zaner-Bloser approach, which could affect their handwriting and academic outcomes.
On the other hand, the positive outcomes of these approaches underscore the
importance of incorporating systematic handwriting instruction in early education to
support academic success (Graham et al., 2020; Lam et al., 2024; Fox, 2023). This is
consistent with the broader research indicating that handwriting quality improves across
primary school years, which further supports the need for continuous instruction
(Duiser, 2023; Sze & Southcott, 2020).
RQ2
The qualitative findings of the present study reveals that students generally have
positive perceptions towards handwriting instruction techniques such as the Zaner-

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

684 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

Bloser and HWT methods. This aligns with the findings of Lam et al. (2024) and Zaner-
Bloser (2003b), who found that the Zaner-Bloser method was appreciated due to its
clear guidelines and structured progression from print to cursive writing. The emphasis
on muscle memory through repetitive practice is valued for its role in reinforcing
correct letter formations and improving legibility (Benson et al., 2010; Graham &
Weintraub, 1996). Students who thrive in structured environments tend to prefer the
Zaner-Bloser method, finding its systematic reinforcement conducive to developing
more legible handwriting, which is essential as handwriting is foundational for higher-
order skills like spelling and comprehension (Feder & Majnemer, 2007).
Conversely, the HWT program is favoured for its user-friendly and engaging approach.
The integration of multisensory activities and simplified letter forms is particularly
beneficial for students who struggle with fine motor skills (Donica, 2015). This
approach resonates with the findings of Medwell and Wray (2014), who noted that
traditional handwriting instruction can lead to better writing fluency compared to digital
tools. The less rigid structure and more interactive techniques of HWT help reduce
anxiety and make handwriting practice enjoyable (Olsen & Knapton, 2008). Students
appreciate the variety of tools and activities, such as wooden letter pieces and slate
chalkboards, which make learning to write less daunting and more accessible (Donica,
2015). This is particularly important considering that handwriting remains a critical skill
for communication, despite the rise of digital technology (Namgyal, 2021).
Comparative studies indicate that student preferences significantly influence the
perceived effectiveness of these handwriting instruction techniques. Those who respond
well to a structured and repetitive practice environment may find greater success with
Zaner-Bloser, while students who need a more relaxed and engaging approach may
benefit more from HWT. Overall, the positive perceptions of both methods highlight the
importance of tailoring handwriting instruction to meet individual student needs and
learning styles (Bray et al., 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2015). The success of these
handwriting instruction techniques underscores the necessity of incorporating diverse
and adaptable methods in educational settings to cater to the varying needs of students,
thereby enhancing their academic performance and overall literacy development, as
supported by the research on the critical role of handwriting in early education
(Dinehart & Manfra, 2015; James & Engelhardt, 2012).
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This AR highlights the significant impact of structured handwriting instruction
techniques on improving the writing legibility of fourth-grade students. Both the Zaner-
Bloser and HWT methods demonstrated considerable effectiveness, as evidenced by
substantial improvements in handwriting legibility scores post-intervention. Students’
perceptions further validated these findings, with positive feedback highlighting the
benefits of clear guidelines and engaging, multisensory activities. The results suggest
that tailoring handwriting instruction to accommodate diverse learning styles and
preferences can enhance the overall efficacy of these methods. Ultimately,
incorporating well-designed handwriting instruction techniques in the curriculum is
crucial for fostering legible and fluent handwriting skills, which are essential for

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

Lhamo & Rigdel 685

students’ academic success. Moreover, it should be noted that handwriting instruction is

most effective when accompanied by immediate corrective feedback. Fu and Li (2022)
discovered that immediate feedback is more effective than delayed feedback in
promoting L2 development. Similarly, Van Ha et al. (2021) found that students place a
high value on receiving immediate feedback.
The findings of this study have significant implications for various stakeholders,
including teachers, students, parents, and policymakers. For teachers, the effectiveness
of both the Zaner-Bloser and HWT methods in enhancing handwriting legibility
suggests that these approaches should be incorporated into school programs. This can
lead to improved teaching strategies and better student outcomes. Additionally, ongoing
professional development is essential to help educators implement and adapt these
techniques effectively. For curriculum developers, the findings support the creation of
standardized assessments for handwriting skills, crucial for identifying students who
need additional support and for tracking progress over time. The study also highlights
the importance of creating engaging and supportive learning environments that improve
technical skills, reduce anxiety, and increase motivation. Parents can use these insights
to help their children practice handwriting at home, particularly by integrating digital
tools. Finally, the study’s implications for early childhood education emphasize the role
of handwriting instruction in developing fine motor skills, informing policies that
ensure effective handwriting instruction in schools.
REFERENCES
Adams, A. M., Simmons, F. R. (2019). Exploring individual and gender differences in
early writing performance. Read and Writing, 32, 235–263.
[Link]
Benson, J. D., Salls, J., & Perry, C. (2010). A Pilot Study of Teachers’ Perceptions of
Two Handwriting Curricula: Handwriting Without Tears and the Peterson Directed
Handwriting Method. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention,
3(4), 319–330. [Link]
Bonneton-Botté, N., Fleury, S., Girard, N., Le Magadou, M., Cherbonnier, A., Renault,
M., ... & Jamet, E. (2020). Can tablet apps support the learning of handwriting? An
investigation of learning outcomes in kindergarten classroom. Computers & Education,
151, 103831. [Link]
Bonneton-Botté, N., Miramand, L., Bailly, R., & Pons, C. (2023). Teaching and
rehabilitation of handwriting for children in the digital age: Issues and
challenges. Children, 10(7), 1096. [Link]
Bray, L. M. P., & Skubik-Peplaski, C. (2022). Handwriting without Tears® via
Telehealth Delivery: A Case Study of Feasibility and Effectiveness for Handwriting and
Spelling Outcomes. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention,
1–21. [Link]
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Routledge. [Link]

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

686 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative,

and Mixed Method Approaches. SAGE.
Dinehart, L. H. (2015). Handwriting in early childhood education: Current research and
future implications. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(1), 97-118.
[Link]
Donica, D. K. (2015). Handwriting Without Tears®: General education effectiveness
through a consultative approach. The American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 69(6), 6906180050p1-6906180050p8.
[Link]
Duiser, I. H. F. (2023). Difficulties with handwriting in primary school children. [PhD-
Thesis - Research and graduation internal, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam].
ProefschriftMaken. [Link]
Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting Development, Competency, and
Intervention. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49, 312-317.
[Link]
Fox, L. B. (2023). Handwriting: A Qualitative Study Exploring Elementary Teachers’
Beliefs, Knowledge, Preparation, Practice and Influencing Factors in Handwriting
Instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota).
Fu, M., & Li, S. (2022). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on
L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 2-34.
[Link]
Gosse, C., Parmentier, M., & Van Reybroeck, M. (2021). How do spelling, handwriting
speed, and handwriting quality develop during primary school? Cross-classified growth
curve analysis of children's writing development. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 685681.
[Link]
Graham, S. (1992). Issues in Handwriting Instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children,
25(2).
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (2000). Extra Handwriting Instruction: Prevent
Writing Difficulties Right from the Start. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 88–91.
[Link]
Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The Effects of Writing on Learning
in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 90(2), 179-226. [Link]
Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and
prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 7–87.
[Link]
Lam, K., Chase, P., Riley, D., & Schechter, R. L. (2024). Zaner-Bloser Handwriting
Efficacy Study. Examining the Effectiveness of Zaner-Bloser Handwriting: School

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

Lhamo & Rigdel 687

Level Third-Grade Handwriting Proficiency in Alabama, Spring 2023. Online

Submission.
Lopez-Escribano, C., Martin-Babarro, J., & Perez-Lopez, R. (2022). Promoting
handwriting fluency for preschool and elementary-age students: Meta-analysis and
meta-synthesis of research from 2000 to 2020. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 841573.
[Link]
McMaster, K. L., Lembke, E. S., Shin, J., Poch, A. L., Smith, R. A., Jung, P.-G., Allen,
A. A., & Wagner, K. (2020). Supporting teachers’ use of data-based instruction to
improve students’ early writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), 1–
21. [Link]
Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2014). Handwriting automaticity: the search for performance
thresholds. Language and Education, 28(1), 34–51.
[Link]
Mertler, C. A. (2021). Action Research as Teacher Inquiry: A Viable Strategy for
Resolving Problems of Practice. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,
26(19), 1-12. [Link]
Hine, G. S. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs.
Issues in Educational research, 23(2), 151-163.
[Link]
James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The Effects of Handwriting Experience on
Functional Brain Development in Pre-Literate Children. Trends in Neuroscience and
Education. [Link]
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed). Geelong:
Deakin University Press.
Kim, Y. S. G., Yang, D., Reyes, M., & Connor, C. (2021). Writing instruction improves
students’ writing skills differentially depending on focal instruction and children: A
meta-analysis for primary grade students. Educational Research Review, 34, 100408.
[Link]
Namgyal, W. (2021). Enhancing English Handwriting Skills of Class II Students.
International Journal of Science and Innovative Research, 2(11), 4-12.
Olsen, J. Z. (2003). Handwriting Without Tears Kindergarten Teacher’s Guide (9th
ed.). Potomac, MD: Handwriting Without Tears.
Olsen, J. Z., & Knapton, E. F. (2008). Handwriting Without Tears: A multisensory
approach to handwriting instruction. Silver Spring, MD: Handwriting Without Tears.
Pal, U., Jayadevan, R., & Sharma, N. (2012). Handwriting Recognition in Indian
Regional Scripts: A Survey of Offline Techniques. ACM Transactions on Asian
Language Information Processing (TALIP), 11(1), 1-35.
[Link]

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2

688 Handwriting Legibility among Elementary Students using …

Pfeiffer, B., Rai, G., Murray, T., & Brusilovskiy, E. (2015). Effectiveness of the size
matters handwriting program. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 35(2), 110-
119. [Link]
Pontart, V., Bidet-Ildei, C., Lambert, E., Morisset, P., Flouret, L., & Alamargot, D.
(2013). Influence of handwriting skills during spelling in primary and lower secondary
grades. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 818. [Link]
Randall, B. S. (2018). Collaborative instruction and Handwriting Without Tears®: A
strong foundation for kindergarten learning. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools,
& Early Intervention, 11(4), 374–384. [Link]
Ray, K., Dally, K., Rowlandson, L. et al. The relationship of handwriting ability and
literacy in kindergarten: a systematic review. Read Writ 35, 1119–1155 (2022).
[Link]
Rigdel, K. S., & Thapa, M. R. (2024). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of
using community as classroom for learning geography. International Journal of
Instruction, 17(3), 61-78. [Link]
Salls, J., Benson, J. D., Hansen, M. A., Cole, K., & Pielielek, A. (2013). A comparison
of the Handwriting Without Tears program and Peterson Directed Handwriting program
on handwriting performance in typically developing first grade students. Journal of
Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 6(2), 131-142.
[Link]
Supriatna, A., & Ediyanto, E. (2021). The implementation of multisensory technique for
children with dyslexia. Indonesian Journal of Disability Studies, 8(1), 279-293.
[Link]
Sze, J. L., & Southcott, J. (2020). Pencil or Keyboard? Boys’ Preferences in Writing.
The Qualitative Report, 25(7), 1946-1959. [Link]
3715/2020.4621
Turner, R. C., & Carlson, L. (2003). Indexes of Item-Objective Congruence for
Multidimensional Items. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 163–171.
[Link]
Van Ha, X., Nguyen, L. T., & Hung, B. P. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English
as a foreign language classroom: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7(7).
[Link]
Woodward, S., & Swinth, Y. (2002). Multisensory approach to handwriting
remediation: Perceptions of school-based occupational therapists. The American journal
of occupational therapy, 56(3), 305-312. [Link]
Worthington, C. L. (2011). Handwriting proficiency: a critical foundation for middle-
school success. Capella University.
Zaner-Bloser, Inc. (2003b). Zaner-Bloser Handwriting 2C: Teacher Edition. Columbus,
OH.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2025 ● Vol.18, No.2