A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994

Abstract

Contemporary handwriting research has focused on skilled performance, the developing capabilities of children, atypical development, the effectiveness of various letter forms, instructional techniques, and the construction and evaluation of assessment instruments. This paper critically reviews and synthesizes research conducted between 1980 and 1994 in each of these areas, providing suggestions for future research. Considerable progress was made during this time period in understanding the processes involved in handwriting control and development as well as in teaching students with handwriting difficulties. In addition, advances in theory, experimental procedures, on-line recording devices, and computerized instructional programs resulted in an increased level of sophistication. Thus, the prospects for future research in this area are promising.

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

References

  1. Abbott, R. D., and Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary-and intermediate-grade writers.J. Educ. Psychol. 85: 478–508.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alston, J. (1981).Handwriting Checklist. Learning Development Aids, London.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alston, J. (1983). A legibility index: Can handwriting be measured?Educ. Rev. 35: 237–240.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alston, J. (1985). The handwriting of seven to nine year olds.Brit. J. Spec. Educ. 12: 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, S., Saver, J., Tranel, D., and Damasio, H. (1993). Acquired agraphia caused by focal brain damage.Acta Psychol. 82: 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson-Inman, L., Paine, S., and Deutchman, L. (1984). Neatness counts: Effects of direct instruction and self-monitoring on the transfer of neat-paper skills to nontraining settings.Anal. Interv. Devel. Disab. 4: 137–155.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Armitage, D., and Ratzlaff, H. (1985). The non-correlation of printing and writing skill.J. Educ. Res. 78: 174–177.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Askov, E., Otto, W., and Askov, W. (1970). A decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect.J. Educ. Res. 69: 86–98.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Athenes, S., and Guiard, Y. (1991). Is the inverted handwriting posture really so bad for left-handers? In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives, and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ayres, L. (1912).A Scale for Measuring the Quality of Handwriting of School Children. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berninger, V. W., and Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional fluency: Implications for assessing writing disabilities in primary grade children.J. School Psychol. 30: 363–382.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., and Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing.Reading Writing: Interdisc. J. 4: 257–280.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Biemiller, A., Regan, E., and Gang, B. (1993).Studies in the Development of Writing Speed: Age, Task, and Individual Differences. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Blandford, B., and Lloyd, J. (1987). Effects of a self-instructional procedure on handwriting.J. Learning Disab. 20: 342–346.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Blote, A., and Hamstra-Bletz, L. (1991). A longitudinal study on the structure of handwriting.Percept. Motor Skills 72: 983–994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blote, A., Zielstra, E., and Zoetewey, M. (1987). Writing posture and writing movement of children in kindergarten.J. Hum. Movement 13: 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bracey, G. (1993). Word processing and writing: A summary.Phi Delta Kappan 75: 272.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brewer, N., Cunningham, S., and White, J. (1989–1990). A computerized procedure for teaching letter formation skills to mentally retarded individuals.J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 18: 185–190.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Briggs, D. (1970). Influence of handwriting on assessment.Educ. Res. 13: 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Briggs, D. (1980). A study of the influence of handwriting upon grades using examination scripts.Educ. Rev. 32: 185–193.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brown, J., Carr, T., Brown, T., McDonald, J., Charalambous, A., and West, E. (1989). Coordinating language generation and motor control in discourse production via handwriting. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 299–316.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Burkhalter, B., and Wright, J. (1984). Handwriting performance with and without transparent overlays.J. Exp. Educ. 52: 132–135.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Burton, A., Pick, H., Holmes, C., and Teulings, H. (1990). The independence of horizontal and vertical dimensions in handwriting with and without vision.Acta Psychol. 75: 201–212.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Calhoun, M. (1985). Typing contrasted with handwriting in language arts instruction for moderately mentally retarded students.Educ. Training Ment. Retarded 20: 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Carlson, K., and Cunningham, J. (1990). Effect of pencil diameter on the graphomotor skill of preschoolers.Early Childhood Res. Quart. 5: 279–293.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Carter, J., and Russell, H. (1980). Biofeedback and academic attainment of LD children.Acad. Ther. 15: 483–486.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Carter, J., and Russell, H. (1985). Use of EMG biofeedback procedures with learning disabled children in a clinical and an educational setting.J. Learning Disab. 4: 213–216.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Castiello, U., and Stelmach, G. (1993). Generalized representation of handwriting: Evidence of effector independence.Acta Psychol. 82: 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chase, C. (1986). Essay test scoring: Interaction of relevant variables.J. Educ. Meas. 23: 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chau, A., Kao, H., and Shek, D. (1986). Writing time of double-character Chinese words: Effects of interrupting writing responses. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 273–288.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature.Rev. Educ. Res. 61: 107–155.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Coles, R., and Goodman, Y. (1980). Do we really need those oversized pencils to write with?Theory Into Prac. 19: 194–196.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Collins, F. L., Baer, G. R., Walls, N., and Jackson, M. S. (1980). The development of a behavioral assessment technique of evaluating gradual change in handwriting performance.Behav. Assess. 2: 369–387.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Coon, G., and Palmer, G. (1993).Handwriting research and information: An administrator's handbook. Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Copley, J., and Ziviani, J. (1990). Kinesthetic sensitivity and handwriting ability in grade one children.Austr. Occup. Ther. J. 37: 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cunningham, A. E., and Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Early spelling acquisition: Writing beats the computer.J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 159–162.

    Google Scholar 

  37. De Goes, C., and Martlew, M. (1983). Young children's approach to literacy. In Martlew, M. (ed.),The Psychology of Written Language, John Wiley and Sons, England, pp. 217–236.

    Google Scholar 

  38. De La Paz, S., and Graham, S. (in press). Dictation: Application to writing with students with learning disabilities. In Scruggs, T., and Mastepori, M. (eds.),Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

  39. Duane, D. (1994). Personal communication.

  40. Duvall, B. (1985). Evaluating the difficulty of four handwriting styles used for instruction.ERS Spect. 3: 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dyson, A. (1982). The emergence of visible language: interrelationships between drawing and early writing.Vis. Lang. 16: 360–381.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Edelsky, C. (1990). Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller.Educ. Res. 19: 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ellis, A. (1982). Spelling and writing (and reading and speaking). In Ellis, A. (ed.),Normality and Pathology in Cognitive Functions. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fagan, W. (1988). Concepts of reading and writing among low-literate adults.Reading Res. Instr. 27: 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Farris, P. (1982).A Comparison of Handwriting Strategies for Primary Grade Students, ERIC Document Reproduction Service (CS 209 360), Arlington, VA.

  46. Farris, P. (1989). The implementation of a whole language program: Four teachers' experiences.Il. School J. 69: 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Flower, L., and Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In Gregg, L., and Steinberg, E. (eds.),Cognitive Processes in Writing, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 31–50.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Furner, B. (1970). An analysis of the effectiveness of a program of instruction emphasizing the perceptual-motor nature of learning in handwriting.Elem. Eng. 47: 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Gombert, J., and Fayol, M. (1992). Writing in preliterate children.Learning Instr. 2: 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Goodgold, S. (1983). Handwriting movement quality in prekindergarten children.Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 64: 471–475.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Goodnow, J., and Levine, R. (1973). The grammar of action: Sequence and syntax in children's copying.Cognit. Psychol. 4: 82–98.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Graham, S. (1982). Measurement of handwriting skills: A critical review.Diagnostique 8: 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Graham, S. (1983). The effects of self-instructional procedures on LD students' handwriting performance.Learning Disab. Quart. 6: 231–234.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Graham, S. (1986a). A review of handwriting scales and factors that contribute to variability in handwriting scores.J. School Psychol. 24: 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Graham, S. (1986b). The reliability, validity, and utility of three handwriting measurement procedures.J. Educ. Res. 79: 373–380.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions.J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 781–791.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Graham, S. (1992a). Issues in handwriting instruction.Focus Except. Children 25: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Graham, S. (1992b). Test of legible handwriting. In Conoley, J., and Kramer, J. (eds.),Eleventh Mental Measurement Yearbook, Nebraska University Press, Lincoln, NB, pp. 968–969.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Graham, S. (1993/1994). Are slanted manuscript alphabets superior to the traditional alphabet?Childhood Educ. 70: 91–95.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Graham, S., and Harris, K. R. (1988). Instructional recommendations for teaching writing to exceptional students.Except. Children 54: 506–512.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Graham, S., and Harris, K. R. (1994a). The implications of constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs.J. Spec. Educ. 28: 275–289.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Graham, S., and Harris, K. R. (1994b). The effects of whole language on writing: A review.Educ. Psychol. 29: 187–192.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Graham, S., and Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach.Focus Excep. Children 13: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Graham, S., Boyer-Schick, K., and Tippets, E. (1989). The validity of the handwriting scale from the Test of Written Language.J. Educ. Res. 82: 166–171.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., and MacArthur, C. (1993). Learning disabled and normally achieving students' knowledge of the writing process, attitudes toward writing, and self-efficacy.J. Learning Disab. 26: 237–249.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Graham, S., Abbott, B., and Berninger, V. (1994). The Relationship Between Composing and the Lower Order Skills of Handwriting and Spelling. Unpublished raw data.

  67. Graves, D. H. (1983). Context and motor control in handwriting.Acta Psychol. 54: 205–215.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Hagborg, W., and Aiello-Coulter, M. (1994). The Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration—3R and teachers' ratings of written language.Percept. Motor Skills 79: 371–374.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Halder-Sinn, P. (1991). Deviation of slant in freehand simulation of handwriting.Percept. Motor Skills 72: 171–176.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Hamstra-Bletz, L., and Blote, A. (1990). Development of handwriting in primary school: A longitudinal study.Percept. Motor Skills 70: 759–770.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Hamstra-Bletz, L., and Blote, A. (1993). A longitudinal study on dysgraphic handwriting in primary school.J. Learning Disab. 26: 689–699.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hamstra-Bletz, L., De Bie., J., and Den Brinker, B. (1987).Concise Evaluation Scale for Children's Handwriting, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

  73. Harris, T. (1960). Handwriting. InEncyclopedia of Educational Research, MacMillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Hartley, J. (1991). Sex differences in handwriting: A comment on Spear.Brit. Educ. Res. J. 17: 141–145.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Hartley, S., and Salzwedel, K. (1980). Behavioral writing for an autistic-like child.Acad. Ther. 16: 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Hayes, D. (1982). Handwriting practice: The effects of perceptual prompts.J. Educ. Res. 75: 169–172.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hebb, D. (1955). Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system).Psychol. Bull. 62: 243–254.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Herrick, V. (1963).New Horizons for Research in Handwriting, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Herrick, V., and Okada, N. (1963). The present scene: Practices in teaching handwriting in the United States. In Herrick, V. (ed.),New Horizons for Research in Handwriting, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hill, D., Gladden, M., Porter, J., and Cooper, J. (1982). Variables affecting transitions from wide spaced to normal-spaced paper for manuscript handwriting.J. Educ. Res. 76: 50–53.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Hollerback, J. M. (1981). An oscillation theory of handwriting.Biol. Cybernet. 39: 139–156.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Hughes, D. C., Keeling, B., and Tuck, B. F. (1983). Effects of achievement expectations and handwriting quality on scoring essays.J. Educ. Meas. 20: 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Hulstijn, W., and van Galen, G. (1983). Programming in handwriting: Reaction time and movement time as a function of sequence length.Acta Psychol. 54: 23–49.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Jackson, K. A., Jolly, V., and Hamilton, B. (1980). Comparison of remedial treatments for cursive handwriting of fourth-grade students.Percept. Motor Skills 51: 1215–1221.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Johnson, D. J., and Grant, J. O. (1989). Written narratives of normal and learning disabled children.Ann. Dyslexia 39: 140–158.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Judd, D. M., Siders, J. A., Siders, J. Z., and Atkins, K. R. (1986). Sex differences on fine-motor tasks at grade one.Percept. Motor Skills 62: 307–312.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Kao, H. (1983). Progressive motion variability in handwriting tasks.Acta Psychol. 54: 149–159.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Kao, H., and Cheuk-Ming, W. (1988). Pen pressure in chinese handwriting.Percept. Motor Skills 67: 778.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Kao, H., Shek, D., and Lee, E. (1983). Control modes and task complexity in tracing and handwriting performance.Acts Psychol. 54: 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Kao, H., Hong, M., and Wah, L. (1986a). Handwriting pressure: Effects of task complexity, control mode and orthographic difference. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science Pub., North-Holland, pp. 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (1986b),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science Pub., North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Kerr, M., and Lambert, D. (1982). Behavior modification of children's written language. In Herson, M., Eisler, R., and Miller, M. (eds.),Progress in Behavior Modification (Vol. 13), Academic Press, New York, pp. 79–108.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Kirk, U. (1981). The development and use of rules in the acquisition of perceptual motor skills.Child Devl. 52: 299–305.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kosiewicz, M., Hallahan, D., and Lloyd, J. (1981). The effects of an LD student's treatment choice on handwriting performance.Learning Disab. Quart. 4: 278–286.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Kosiewicz, M., Hallahan, D., Lloyd, J., and Graves, A. (1982). Effects of self-instruction and self-correction procedures on handwriting performance.Learning Disab. Quart. 5: 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Lally, M. (1982). Computer-assisted handwriting instruction and visual/kinesthetic feedback processes.Appl. Res. Ment. Retard. 3: 397–405.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Lamme, L., and Ayris, B. (1983). Is the handwriting of beginning writers influenced by writing tools?J. Res. Devel. Educ. 17: 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  98. LaNunziata, L. J., Cooper, J., Hill, D., and Trap-Porter, J. (1985). The differential effects of still illustration, motion illustration, and modeling on students' manuscript letter legibility.J. Educ. Res. 79: 109–113.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Larsen, S., and Hammill, D. (1989).Test of Legible Handwriting, Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Laszlo, J., and Broderick, P. (1991). Drawing and handwriting difficulties: Reasons for and remediation of dysfunction. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 259–280.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Lehman, E., and Goodnow, J. (1975). Directionality in copying: Memory, handedness, and alignment effects.Percept. Motor Skills 41: 863–872.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Lester, D., Nosal, G., Purnell, P., and Quigley, C. (1979). Studies on disguised handwriting.Percept. Motor Skills 48: 640.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Lindsay, G. A., and McLennan, D. (1983). Lined paper: Its effects on the legibility and creativity of young children's writing.Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 53: 364–368.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Maamari, F., and Plamondon, R. (1986). Extraction of the analog pentip position, velocity and acceleration signals from a digitizer. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 199–211.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Maarse, F., and Thomassen, A. (1983). Produced and perceived writing slant: Difference between up and down strokes.Acta Psychol. 54: 131–147.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Maarse, F., van de Veerdonk, J., van der Linden, M., and Pranger-Moll, W. (1991). Handwriting training: Computer-aided tools for remedial teaching. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives, and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 249–258.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Mabee, W. S. (1988). The effects of academic positive practice on cursive letter writing.Educ. Treatment Children 11: 143–148.

    Google Scholar 

  108. MacLeod, I., and Lally, M. (1981). The effectiveness of computer controlled feedback in handwriting instruction. In Lewis, R., and Tagg, D. (eds.),Computers in Education, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 291–296.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Maeland, A., and Karlsdottir, R. (1991). Development of reading, spelling, and writing skills from third to sixth grade in normal dysgraphic school children. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Margolin, D. I. (1984). The neuropsychology of writing and spelling: Semantic, phonological, motor, and perceptual processes.Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 36: 459–489.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Margolin, D. I., and Wing, A. M. (1983). Agraphia and micrographia: Clinical manifestations of motor programming and performance disorders.Acta Psychol. 54: 263–283.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Markham, L. (1976). Influence of handwriting quality on teacher evaluation of written work.Am. Educ. Res. J. 13: 277–283.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Martlew, M. (1992). Handwriting and spelling: Dyslexic children's abilities compared with children of the same chronological age and younger children of the same spelling level.Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 62: 375–390.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Massey, A. (1983). The effects of handwriting and other incidental variables on GCE “A” level marks in English literature.Educ. Rev. 35: 45–50.

    Google Scholar 

  115. McCoy, K. M., and Leader, L. A. (1980). Teaching cursive signature to the blind: A task analytic approach.Visual Impairment Blindness 74: 69–71.

    Google Scholar 

  116. McKay, M. F., and Neale, M. D. (1985). Predicting early school achievement in reading and handwriting using major “error” categories from the Bender-Gestalt test for young children.Percept. Motor Skills 60: 647–654.

    Google Scholar 

  117. McLaughlin, T. (1983). Effects of self-recording for on-task and academic responding: A long term analysis.J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 6: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  118. McLaughlin, T. F., Mabee, W. S., Byram, B. J., and Reiter, S. M. (1987). Effects of academic positive practice and response cost on writing legibility of behaviorally disordered and learning-disabled junior high school students.J. Child Adolesc. Psychother. 4: 216–221.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Merton, P. (1972). How we control the contraction of our muscles.Sci. Am. 226: 30–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Meulenbroek, R., and Thomassen, A. (1993). Exploitation of elasticity as a biomechanical property in the production of graphic stroke sequence.Acta Psychol. 82: 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Meulenbroek, R., and van Galen, G. (1986). Movement analysis of repetitive writing behavior of first, second and third grade primary school children. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 199–211.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Meulenbroek, R., and van Galen, G. (1989). The production of connecting strokes in cursive writing: Developing co-articulation in 8 to 12 year-old children. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner, M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Meulenbroek, R., and van Galen, G. (1990). Perceptual-motor complexity of printed and cursive letters.J. Exp. Educ. 58: 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Moilanen, C., and Lehman, C. (1989). The effects of italic handwriting on legibility: The methods and findings of a three-year study.Visible Lang. 23: 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Mojet, J. (1991). Characteristics of the developing handwriting skill in elementary education. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 53–75.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Moore, R. L., and Rust, J. O. (1989). Printing errors in the prediction of academic performance.J. School Psychol. 27: 297–300.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Morasso, P., and Sanguineti, V. (1993). Neurocomputing aspects in modelling cursive handwriting.Acta Psychol. 82: 213–235.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Nihei, Y. (1983). Developmental change in covert principles for the organization of strokes in drawing and handwriting.Acta Psychol. 54: 221–232.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Oglesby, B. (1982). A Comparative Study of the Difference in the Manuscript Handwriting Performance of Six Below-Average Second-Grade Students Who Experienced the D'Nealian Method of Handwriting Instruction for a Nine-Week Period When Compared to Six Below-Average Second-Grade Students Who Experienced the Zaner-Bloser Method of Handwriting Instruction for a Nine-Week Period, as Measured by Four Judges' Scores on a Teacher-Made Check-List. Master's Thesis, University of North Florida, Jacksonville.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Orliaguet, J., and Boe, L. (1993). The role of linguistics in the speed of handwriting movement: Effects of spelling uncertainty.Acta Psychol. 82: 103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Ourada, E. (1993). Legibility of third-grade handwriting: D'Nealian handwriting versus traditional Zaner-Bloser. In Coon, G., and Palmer, G. (eds.),Handwriting Research and Information: An Administrator's Handbook, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL, pp. 72–87.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Peck, M., Askov, E. N., and Fairchild, S. H. (1980). Another decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect in the 1970s.J. Educ. Res. 73: 283–298.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Phelps, J., and Stempel, L. (1988). The Children's Handwriting Evaluation Scale for Manuscript Writing.Reading Improvement 25: 247–255.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Phelps, J., and Stempel, L. (1991). The identification of dyslexic handwriting through graphoanalysis. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives, and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 191–203.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Phelps, J., Stempel, L., and Speck, G. (1985). The children's handwriting scale: A new diagnostic tool.J. Educa. Res. 79: 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Phillips, J., Stelmach, G., and Teasdale, N. (1989). Preliminary assessment of spatio-temporal control of handwriting in Parkinsonians. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner, M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Plamondon, R., Suen, C., and Simner, M. (1989).Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Raibert, M. (1977).Motor Control and Learning by the State-Space Model, Technical Report, Artifical Intelligence Laboratory, MIT.

  139. Roberts, G. I., and Samuels, M. T. (1993). Handwriting remediation: A comparison of computer-based and traditional approaches.J. Educ. Res. 87: 118–125.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Robin, A. L., Armel, S., and O'Leary, D. K. (1975). The effects of self-instruction on writing deficiencies.Behav. Ther. 6: 178–187.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Rubin, N., and Henderson, S. E. (1982). Two sides of the same coin: Variation in teaching methods and failure to learn to write.Spec. Educ.: Forward Trends 9: 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Sandler, A., Watson, T., Footo, M., Levine, M., Coleman, W., and Hooper, S. (1992). Neurodevelopmental study of writing disorders in middle childhood.Devel. Behav. Pediat. 14: 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Sassoon, R. (1991). The effects of teachers' personal handwriting on their production of school handwriting models. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives, and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Sassoon, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., and Wing, A. M. (1986). An analysis of children's penholds. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Sassoon, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., and Wing, A. M. (1989). Developing efficiency in cursive handwriting: An analysis of “t” crossing behavior in children. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner, M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Scardamailia, M., Bereiter, C., and Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In Nystrand, M. (ed.),What Writers Know: The Language, Process and Structure of Written Discourse, Academic Press, New York, pp. 173–210.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Schneck, C. (1991). Comparison of pencil-grip patterns in first graders with good and poor writing skills.Am. J. Occup. Ther. 45: 701–706.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Schomaker, L., Thomassen, A., and Teulings, H. (1989). A computational model of cursive handwriting. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner, M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 153–177.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Sharpley, C. F., Irvine, J. W., and Hattie, J. A. (1980). Changes in performance of children's handwriting as a result of varying contingency conditions.Alberta J. Educ. Res. 26: 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Shek, D., Kao, H., and Chau, A. (1986). Attentional resources allocation processes in different modes of handwriting control. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science Pub., North-Holland, pp. 289–303.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Simner, M. L. (1981). The grammar of action and children's printing.Devel. Psychol. 17: 866–871.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Simner, M. L. (1982). Printing errors in kindergarten and the prediction of academic performance.J. Learning Disab. 15: 155–159.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Simner, M. L. (1984). The grammar of action and reversal errors in children's printing.Devel. Psychol. 20: 136–142.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Simner, M. L. (1986). Further evidence on the relationship between form errors in preschool printing and early school achievement. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Simner, M. L. (1989). Predictive validity of an abbreviated version of the Printing Performance School Readiness Test. Test.J. School Psychol. 27: 189–195.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Simner, M. L. (1990). Printing Performance School Readiness Test.Acad. Ther. 25: 371–375.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Simner, M. L. (1991). Estimating a child's learning potential from form errors in a child's printing. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research Perspectives, and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 205–221.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Sims, E. V., and Weisberg, P. (1984). Effects of page prompts on beginning handwriting legibility.J. Educ. Res. 77: 360–365.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Smyth, M. M. (1989). Visual control of movement patterns and the grammar of action.Acta Psychol. 70: 253–265.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Smyth, M. M., and Silvers, G. (1987). Functions of vision of handwriting.Acta Psychol. 65: 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Sovik, N. (1980). Developmental trends of visual feedback control and learning in children's copying and tracking skills.J. Exp. Educa. 49: 106–119.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Sovik, N. (1981). An experimental study of individualized learning/instruction in copying, tracking, and handwriting based on feedback principles.Percept. Motor Skills 53: 195–215.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Sovik, N. (1984). The effects of a remedial tracking program on the writing performance of dysgraphic children.Scand. J. Educ. Res. 28: 129–147.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Sovik, N., and Arntzen, O. (1991). A developmental study of the relation between the movement patterns in letter combination (words) and writing. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives, and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Sovik, N., and Teulings, H. L. (1983). Real-time feedback of handwriting in a teaching program.Acta Psychol. 54: 285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Sovik, N., Arntzen, O., and Thygesen, R. (1986). Effects of fedback training on “normal” and dysgraphic students. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsvier Science Pub., North-Holland, pp. 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Sovik, N., Arntzen, O., and Thygesen, R. (1987a). Relation of spelling and writing in learning disabilities.Percep. Motor Skills, 64: 219–236.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Sovik, N., Arntzen, O., and Thygesen, R. (1987b). Writing characteristics of “normal,” dyslexic, and dysgraphic children.J. Human Movement Stud. 31: 171–187.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Sovik, N., Maeland, F., and Karlsdottir, R. (1989). Contextual factors and writing performance of “normal” and dysgraphic children. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner, M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 333–347.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Spear, M. (1989). Differences between the written work of boys and girls.Brit. Educ. Res. J. 15: 271–277.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Stein, R. A. (1990).Teacher-Recommended Methods and Materials for Teaching Penmanship and Spelling to the Learning Disabled, ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED 334 735), Michigan.

  172. Stelmach, G., and Teulings, H. (1983). Response characteristics of prepared and restructured handwriting.Acta Psychol. 54: 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Stowitschek, J., Ghezzi, P., and Safely, K. (1987). “I'd rather do it myself:” Self-evaluation and correction of handwriting.Educ. Treatment Children 10: 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Suen, C. Y. (1983). Handwriting generation, perception and recognition.Acta Psychol. 54: 295–312.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Sweedler-Brown, C. O. (1992). The effects of training on the appearance bias of holistic essay graders.J. Res. Devel. Educ. 26: 24–88.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Talbert-Johnson, C., Salva, E., Sweeney, W. J., and Cooper, J. O. (1991). Cursive handwriting: Measurement of function rather than topography.J. Educ. Res. 85: 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Tappert, C. (1986). An adaptive system for handwriting recognition. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science Pub., North-Holland, pp. 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Tarnopol, M., and Feldman, N. (1987). Handwriting and school achievement: A cross-cultural study. In Alston, J., and Taylor, J. (eds.),Handwriting: Theory, Research, and Practice, Croom Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Teasdale, N., Forget, R., Bard, C., Paillard, J., Fleury, M., and Lamarre, Y. (1993). The role of proprioceptive information for the production of isometric forces and for handwriting tasks.Acta Psychol. 82: 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Teulings, H., and Marse, F. (1984). Digital recording and processing of handwriting movements.Hum. Movement Sci. 3: 193–217.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Teulings, H., and Schomaker, L. (1993). Invariant properties between stroke features in handwriting.Acta Psychol. 82: 69–88.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Teulings, H., Thomassen, A., and van Gallen, G. (1983). Preparation of partly precued handwriting movements: The size of movement units in handwriting.Acta Psychol. 54: 165–177.

    Google Scholar 

  183. Teulings, H., Mullins, P. A., and Stelmach, G. E. (1986a). The elementary units of programming in handwriting. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  184. Teulings, H. Thomassen, A., and van Gallen, G. (1986b). Invariants in handwriting: The information contained in a motor program. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 305–315.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Thomassen, A., and Meulenbroek, R. (1993). Effects of manipulating horizontal progression in handwriting.Acta Psychol. 82: 329–352.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Thomassen, A., and Schomaker, L. (1986). Between-letter context effects in handwriting trajectories. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 253–272.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Thomassen, A., and Teulings, H. (1983a). Constancy in stationary and progressive handwriting.Acta Psychol. 54: 179–196.

    Google Scholar 

  188. Thomassen, A., and Teulings, H. (1983b). The development of handwriting. In Martlew, M. (ed.),The Psychology of Written Language, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 179–213.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Thomassen, A., Keuss, P., van Galen, G., and Grootveld, C. (1983). Special issue on handwriting research.Acta Psychol. 54.

  190. Thomassen, A., Tibosch, H., and Maarse, F. J. (1989). The effects of context on stroke direction and stroke order in handwriting. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner, M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 213–230.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Thurber, D. (1983).D'Nealian Manuscript—An Aid to Reading Development, ERIC Document Reproduction Service (CS 007 057), Arlington, VA.

  192. Tolchinsky-Landsmann, L., and Levin, I. (1985). Writing in preschoolers: An age-related analysis.Appl. Psycholing. 6: 319–339.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Trap-Porter, J., Gladden, M., Hill, D., and Cooper, J. (1983). Space size and accuracy of second and third grade students' cursive handwriting.J. Educ. Res. 76: 231–233.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Trap-Porter, J., Cooper, J., Hill, D., Swisher, K., and LaNunziata, L. (1984). D'Nealian and Zaner-Bloser manuscript alphabets and initial transition to cursive handwriting.J. Educ. Res. 77: 343–345.

    Google Scholar 

  195. van Doorn, R., and Keuss, P. (1993). Does the production of letter strokes in handwriting benefit from vision?Acta Psychol. 82: 275–290.

    Google Scholar 

  196. van Emmerik, R., and Newell, K. (1989). The relationship between pen-point and joint kinematics in handwriting and drawing. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner, M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 231–248.

    Google Scholar 

  197. van Galen, G. (1990). Phonological and motoric demands in handwriting: Evidence for discrete transmission of information.Acta Psychol. 74: 259–275.

    Google Scholar 

  198. van Galen, G., and Stelmach, G. (1993). Special issue on handwriting research.Acta Psychol. 82.

  199. van Galen, G., and Teulings, H. (1983). The independent monitoring of form and scale factors in handwriting.Acta Psychol. 54: 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  200. van Galen, G., Meulenbroek, R., and Hylkema, H. (1986). On the simultaneous processing of words, letters and strokes in handwriting: Evidence for a mixed linear and parallel model. In Kao, H., van Galen, G., and Hoosain, R. (eds.),Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting, Elsevier Science, North-Holland, pp. 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  201. van Galen, G., Smyth, M., Meulenbroek, R., and Hylkema, H. (1989). The role of short-term memory and the motor buffer in handwriting under visual and non-visual guidance. In Plamondon, R., Suen, C. Y., and Simner, M. L. (eds.),Computer Recognition and Human Production of Handwriting, World Scientific Pub., Singapore, pp. 253–271.

    Google Scholar 

  202. van Galen, G., Portier, S., Smits-Engelsman, B., and Schomaker, L. (1993). Neuromotor noise and poor handwriting in children.Acta Psychol. 82: 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  203. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., and Gordon, J. (1992). Early spelling acquisition: Does writing really beat the computer?Learning Disab. Quart. 15: 223–228.

    Google Scholar 

  204. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., and Gordon, J. (1993). Which motoric condition is most effective for teaching spelling to students with and without learning disabilities?J. Learning Disab. 26: 191–198.

    Google Scholar 

  205. Waggoner, J., LaNunziata, L., Hill, and Cooper (1981). Space size accuracy of kindergarten and first grade students' manuscript handwriting.J. Educ. Res. 74: 182–184.

    Google Scholar 

  206. Wann, J., and Jones, J. (1986). Space-time invariance in handwriting: Contrasts between primary school children displaying advanced or retarded handwriting acquisition.Hum. Movement Sci. 5: 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  207. Wann, J., and Kardirkamanathan, M. (1991). Variability in children's handwriting: Computer diagnosis of writing difficulties. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 223–236.

    Google Scholar 

  208. Wann, J., Wing, A., and Slovik, N. (1991).Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  209. Weber, A. M., and Bradshaw, J. L. (1981). Levy and Reid's neurological model in relation to writing hand/posture: An evaluation.Psychol. Bull. 90: 74–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Wellingham-Jones, P. (1991). Characteristics of handwriting of subjects with multiple sclerosis.Percep. Motor Skills 73: 867–879.

    Google Scholar 

  211. Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., and Finck, D. (1981). Medication effects in the classroom: Three naturalistic indicators.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 9: 419–433.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  212. White, J., Cunningham, S., and Brewer, N. (1989). Computer-assisted instruction in letter formation skills.J. Comput.-Based Res. 16: 122–125.

    Google Scholar 

  213. Wing, A. (1980). The height of handwriting.Acta Psychol. 45: 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  214. Wing, A., Nimmo-Smith, M., and Eldridge, M. (1983). The consistency of cursive letter formation as a function of position in the word.Acta Psychol. 54: 197–204.

    Google Scholar 

  215. Wing, A., Watts, F., and Sharma, V. (1991). Developmental dynamics of handwriting: Appraising the relation between handwriting and personality. In Wann, J., Wing, A., and Sovik, N. (eds.),Development of Graphic Skills: Research, Perspectives and Educational Implications, Academic Press, London, pp. 163–175.

    Google Scholar 

  216. Wright, E. (1990). Generalized motor programs: Reevaluating claims of effector independence. In Jeannerod, M. (ed.),Attention and Performance XIII: Motor Representation and Control, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  217. Wright, E. (1993). Evaluating the special role of time in the control of handwriting.Acta Psychol. 82: 5–52.

    Google Scholar 

  218. Wright, C. D., and Wright, J. P. (1980). Handwriting: The effectiveness of copying from moving versus still models.J. Educ. Res. 74: 95–98.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Yost, L., and Lesiak, J. (1980). The relationship between performance on the Developmental Test of Visual Perception and Handwriting Ability.Education 101: 75–77.

    Google Scholar 

  220. Zaner-Bloser (1993).The Zaner-Bloser Handwriting Survey: Preliminary Tabulations, Zaner-Bloser, Columbus, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Zentall, S. S., and Kruczek, T. (1988). The attraction of color for active attention-problem children.Except. Children 54: 357–362.

    Google Scholar 

  222. Zesiger, P., Mounoud, P., and Hauert, C. (1993). Effects of lexicality and trigram frequency on handwriting production in children and adults.Acta Psychol. 82: 353–365.

    Google Scholar 

  223. Ziviani, J. (1981). Effects of Pencil Shape and Size on Motor Accuracy and Pencil Posture of 8 Year Old Children. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (Ed 218 658).

  224. Ziviani, J. (1982). Children's prehension while writing. A pilot investigation.Brit. Occup. Ther. J. 45: 306–307.

    Google Scholar 

  225. Ziviani, J. (1983). Qualitative changes in dynamic tripod grip between seven and 14 years of age.Devel. Med. Child Neurol. 25: 778–782.

    Google Scholar 

  226. Ziviani, J. (1984). Some elaborations on handwriting speed in 7- to 14-years old.Percep. Motor Skills 58: 535–539.

    Google Scholar 

  227. Ziviani, J., and Elkins, J. (1984). An evaluation of handwriting performance.Educ. Rev. 36: 249–261.

    Google Scholar 

  228. Ziviani, J., and Elkins, J. (1986). Effects of pencil grip on handwriting speed and legibility.Educ. Rev. 38: 247–257.

    Google Scholar 

  229. Ziviani, J., Hayes, A., and Chant, D. (1990). Handwriting: A perceptual-motor disturbance in children with myelomeningocele.Occup. Ther. J. Res. 10: 12–26.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Graham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graham, S., Weintraub, N. A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educ Psychol Rev 8, 7–87 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01761831

Download citation

Key words

  • handwriting research
  • letter forms
  • instructional techniques
  • assessment instruments