1. Ingrid C. King
MSc OT
www.myfantasticfingers.com
© Ingrid C. King 2014
Fantastic Fingers®: Addressing young students’ fine
motor needs through a collaborative modelling
teacher training intervention

2.  Fine motor skills predict future academic success
(Dinehart & Manfra, 2013)
 Use fine motor skills in order to learn how to learn
(Adolf, 2008)
 30–60% of class time spent on fine motor tasks
(Marr et al., 2003; McHale & Cermak, 1992)
 10–30% of students have handwriting difficulties
(Feder & Majnemer, 2000)
 12–17% have impaired manual dexterity
(Ratcliffe, 2011)
 Low self-esteem, academic & behavioural issues
Intro. Why address fine motor skills?

3. Australian teachers reported:
 Lack of support for students with fine motor
difficulties
 Students not eligible for
funding for fine motor
issues alone
 Half had little experience
with OT & that OTs can
help students with fine
motor difficulties
(Jackman & Stagnitti, 2007) © Ingrid C. King 2014
What do teachers report?

4. Internationally, direct intervention and consultation
are used in the provision of school based OT services
Limitations of the OT consultation model:
 Implementation challenges
(Bayona et al., 2006)
 At-risk students seldom addressed
Long wait lists for therapy service – need to explore
additional models of service delivery
(Campbell et al., 2012; Hutton, 2009)
Current OT service delivery issues

5. Whole class OT service delivery:
 Supplementing a preschool curriculum with OT
fine motor program results in significant gains
(Lust & Donica, 2011)
 Fine motor & visual-motor interventions for whole
classes of 5 year olds leads to significant gains
(Ohl et al., 2013)
 Coteaching: OT & teachers jointly conducting
handwriting & writing program for whole
classes of grade one diverse learners beneficial
for all students; collaboration leads to new skills
(Case-Smith et al., 2012)
Other models of OT service delivery?

6. Studies show that teachers value:
 Fine motor workshops that are practical and
interactive
(Chiu et al., 2008)
 Demonstrations
and modelling of
OT programs
within the
classroom
(Fairbairn & Davidson, 1993) © Ingrid C. King 2011
What type of training do teachers want?

7. Purpose of this two phase study was to:
 Examine the effectiveness of a fine motor
collaborative modelling teacher training
intervention on the fine motor task performance
of five yr. old students = quantitative research
methods with one group pre-test post-test design
AND
 Explore whether the collaborative modelling
teacher training intervention was effective from
the teacher’s perspective = qualitative research
methods with five year follow-up interview
Purpose of this study & design

8. Phase 1: whole class evaluated beginning of 2007
 Senior new entrant teacher from low socio-economic,
decile 3 primary school in New Zealand
 Average age of students five years
 10 boys and 9 girls
 None of students had
a diagnosis
 None were receiving OT
 All 19 students from the
class evaluated by OT on
six fine motor tasks © Ingrid C. King 2014
Phase 1: study participants

9. The six fine motor tasks were:
sequential finger touching; channel drawing task; in-hand
manipulation task; copying pre-writing pattern;
colouring-in and cutting out a circle
 Each task was scored
according to set criteria
 Performance was rated
as good (3 points), fair
(2 points), poor (1 point)
 Pre-writing task scored on
3 criteria
 Maximum score of 25 © Ingrid C. King 2014
© Ingrid C. King 2014
Fine motor task evaluation

10. Phase 1 whole class participates in:
 8 week fine motor program, 40 minutes, 3x week
 Action songs and graded activities integrated with
early literacy and numeracy objectives
 1st session of each week run by OT modelling
activities with teacher observing and assisting
 Written guidelines provided for activities
 Teacher repeated session twice more in week
 Following week OT modified/upgraded activities
 Teacher carried out modified activities twice more
 New activities presented each fortnight
Fine motor program with whole class

11. Phase 1 small group identified:
 Six students with low fine motor task performance
scores made slower progress so teacher assistant
assigned to run this group with OT & class teacher
training & supporting,
followed same schedule
 These six repeated the
8 week program over 10
weeks plus 2 weeks of
new activities = 20 weeks
 This group re-evaluated on
six fine motor tasks by OT © Ingrid C. King 2014
Fine motor program now with group

12. Telephonic interview with class teacher:
 Conducted over five years later in 2013
 Active interviewing techniques utilised
e.g. collaborative with mutual disclosure
(Holstein & Gubrium, 1998)
 Lose parameters provided were:
classroom practice; students’ fine motor skills;
teacher’s perception on training process;
intervention content; nature of relationship
 Recorded and transcribed verbatim
 Thematic approach used to analyze the data
(Braun & Clark, 2006)
Phase 2: follow-up interview & analysis

13. Class pre-test:
mean 16.53
std. dev. 2.82
Group pre-test:
mean 14.33
std. dev. 1.86
Group post-test
mean 18.67
std. dev. 1.51
Paired samples t-test
t (5) = 8.77, p < . 001,
d = 3. 58
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Change in Fine Motor
Task Performance Mean
Pre-
Test
Post-
Test
Class
n=19
Group
n=6
Phase 1 results: large effect size

14. Four main themes emerged from interview with
teacher five years on:
1. Fine motor need then and now
 After the training workshop, teacher identified
a big need for fine motor development in her
class, extending to other year levels and ongoing
 Principal also saw the need and supported her
 She believed that she needed to do something for
her low achieving learners: The need for schools is
big… I’ve got lots of children who can’t write their
name… priority learners… are the low achieving…
what are you doing to teach that kid?
Phase 2 results: follow-up interview

15. 2. Collaboration for success
 Teacher indicated that the collaboration between
herself and the therapist was enormous and
building up of the relationship was essential;
(The OT) became a friend as well
 Her classroom was de-privatized and open
 Being flexible was important when collaborating
incl. data collection process which wasn’t onerous
and scheduling of sessions
 Collaboration with the principal was also
important, provided funding for teacher assistant
Phase 2 results: follow-up interview

16. 3. Program content for success
 Teacher liked the fact that the activities
complimented what she was doing already: like the
Caterpillar Song… you made up a tune and the
actions. It wasn’t an extra thing. It was taking
something (a handwriting program) that I was
interested in in any case but adding music to it… I
still sing that all the time… music is important for all
children
 Program was perceived to be really nice and simple
to do and fun for the children and teacher. It
contained lots of variety with inside activities,
outside activities, things to do together
Phase 2 results: follow-up interview

17. 4. Training for success
 Teacher thought the practical workshop activities
and illustrated handouts were excellent
 With reference to the therapist returning each
week to demonstrate activities, the teacher said:
That was really good because for teachers you do
need to have somebody coming back to model it… I
would say ‘when Johnny does this with his fingers,
what are they really meant to be doing?’
 It was hands-on … it wasn’t a theory thing. It was
practice. Modelling is a very important thing to do.
 The fine motor program did not discontinue like
some of the other class programs
Phase 2 results: follow-up interview

18.  Teacher reported positive benefits from the training
for herself professionally & for her students
 After five years she continues to use the acquired
knowledge & activities from the fine motor program
 This model of therapy service appears justified given
the enduring outcomes
 2/3 of group sessions
were conducted
exclusively by teaching
staff yet a significant
difference & large effect
size were obtained © Ing©ri dIn Cg.r Kidi nCg. K20in1g4 2014
Conclusion

19. Clinical implications
According to the statistics we can expect to find
between 12% to 30% of students with fine motor
difficulties. Address this need through:
 Practical fine motor workshops for teachers –
can lead to further training interventions
 Collaboration – build relationship include school
management, set joint goals, flexible data
collection & scheduling, use a relevant fine motor
program – fun, easy to do, related to curriculum
 Train teaching staff by modelling in the classroom
– hands-on, weekly, provide written info., evaluate
progress, apply intervention to groups of students
For more info: www.myfantasticfingers.com