Skip to main content

Handwriting instruction: a commentary on five studies

Reading and Writing volume 31, pages 1367–1377 (2018)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and rememdiation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2009/2010). Handwriting still counts. American Educator, 33, 20–27.

  • Graham, S. (2015). Inaugural editorial for the Journal of Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 13, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospect from l980 to l993. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmons, L. K. (1937). A comparative evaluation of two methods of remedial work in handwriting (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Mississippi, University, MS.

  • McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P., & Oppenheimer, M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Sciences, 25, 1159–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 225–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences Institute Australia, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia

    Steve Graham

  2. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Steve Graham

Authors
  1. Steve Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Graham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graham, S. Handwriting instruction: a commentary on five studies. Read Writ 31, 1367–1377 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9854-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9854-5

Keywords

  • Handwriting
  • Writing
  • Composition