Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1367–1377 | Cite as

Handwriting instruction: a commentary on five studies

  • Steve Graham
Article
First Online:
  • 434 Downloads

Abstract

Handwriting is still a prominent mode for composing for both children and adults As a result, it is important that developing writers acquire fluent and legible handwriting. This article examines the five investigations that were presented in this special issue on handwriting instruction, providing a summary of their collective contributions as well as the limitations of each paper.

Keywords

Handwriting Writing Composition 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and rememdiation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Connelly, V., Dockrell, J., & Barnet, J. (2010). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays. Educational Psychology, 25, 97–110.Google Scholar
  4. Cortada, J. (2015). Before the computer: IBM, NCR, Burroughs, and Remington Rand and the industry they created 1865–1956. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Freedman, S. W., Hull, G. A., Higgs, J. M., & Booten, K. P. (2016). Teaching writing in a digital and global age: Toward access, learning, and development for all. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1389–1450). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graham, S. (2009/2010). Handwriting still counts. American Educator, 33, 20–27.Google Scholar
  8. Graham, S. (2015). Inaugural editorial for the Journal of Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graham, S. (2018). A writer(s) within community model of writing. In C. Bazerman, V. Berninger, D. Brandt, S. Graham, J. Langer, S. Murphy, P. Matsuda, D. Rowe, & M. Schleppegrell (Eds.), The lifespan development of writing (pp. 271–325). Urbana, IL: National Council of English.Google Scholar
  10. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). The development of handwriting fluency and legibility in grades l through 9. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Analysis of presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., McKeown, D., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 13, 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, S., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2016). Writing education around the globe: Introduction and call for a new global analysis. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 781–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1703–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospect from l980 to l993. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kimmons, L. K. (1937). A comparative evaluation of two methods of remedial work in handwriting (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Mississippi, University, MS.Google Scholar
  18. McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mueller, P., & Oppenheimer, M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Sciences, 25, 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 225–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Sciences Institute AustraliaAustralian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options