Grasp patterns of Grade 2 and Grade 4 pupils and the effect of pencil grasp on speed and legibility in handwriting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. L’écriture manuelle est une tâche fonctionnelle essentielle au rendement occupationnel, enseignée très tôt dans le cursus scolaire. Lorsque des difficultés graphomotrices sont constatées, les enseignants et ergothérapeutes interviennent souvent dans le but de modifier la prise du crayon des élèves en privilégiant l’adoption d’une prise tripode dynamique. Toutefois, dans la littérature scientifique, cette prise n’est pas la seule à être répertoriée et considérée comme fonctionnelle. Objectifs. Cette étude vise à documenter les différents types de prise du crayon chez des élèves de 2e et 4e année du primaire, ainsi qu’à examiner la relation entre ces différentes prises et la vitesse et la lisibilité de l’écriture manuelle. Méthode. 57 élèves (2e année : n = 22 ; 4e année : n = 35) ont été filmés, lors d’une série de tâches de production écrite, de manière à identifier les différentes prises adoptées par les élèves. La vitesse et la lisibilité de l’écriture manuelle ont été évaluées par l’entremise d’une tâche de copie de phrases de près. Résultats. Les élèves utilisent différentes prises du crayon. Aucune relation significative n’a été identifiée entre ces prises et la vitesse et la lisibilité de l’écriture manuelle. La prise quadripode dynamique est la plus utilisée par les élèves de 2e année et de 4e année du primaire. Conclusion. La prise tripode dynamique n’est pas la seule prise fonctionnelle adoptée par les élèves. Les prises quadripode dynamique, tripode latérale et quadripode latérale sont toutes aussi fonctionnelles. Lors de l’enseignement de l’écriture, cette diversité quant à la prise du crayon devrait être prise en compte. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Grasp patterns of Grade 2 and Grade 4 pupils and the effect of pencil grasp on speed and legibility in handwriting Background. Handwriting is a functional skill essential for occupational performance that is taught early on to pupils. When a pupil has some difficulties with handwriting, teachers and occupational therapists tend to focus on changing his pencil grasp by favorizing the dynamic tripod one. Therefore, it has been proven that this grasp isn’t the only functional one. Purpose. This study aims to describe grasp patterns of Grade 2 and Grade 4 pupils and evaluate the effect of pencil grasp on speed and legibility in handwriting. Method. 57 pupils (Grade 2: n = 22; Grade 4: n = 42) were filmed during a series of handwritten tasks to identify the different grasps adopted by pupils. The handwriting skills were evaluated by completing a near-point copying task. Findings. Pupils use different pencil grasps and none of the grasps described had an effect on speed and legibility of the handwriting. The dynamic quadrupod grasp is the most used by grade 2 and 4 pupils. Implications. The dynamic tripod grasp is not the only functional grasp. The dynamic quadrupod, lateral tripod and lateral quadrupod graps also allowed good speed and legibility when writing. When teaching handwriting, the different grasps should be taken into consideration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".