See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227220438

How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey

Article  in  Reading and Writing · February 2007

DOI: 10.1007/s11145-007-9064-z

CITATIONS READS

161 1,503

6 authors, including:

Steve Graham Karen R. Harris

Arizona State University Arizona State University
367 PUBLICATIONS   25,446 CITATIONS    221 PUBLICATIONS   14,464 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Linda H. Mason
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
41 PUBLICATIONS   2,473 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Graham, S., Berninger, V., Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 32 (3), 516-536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.002. View project

Evidence-Based Practices for Early Literacy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steve Graham on 30 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Read Writ (2008) 21:49–69
DOI 10.1007/s11145-007-9064-z

How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting?

A national survey

Steve Graham Æ Karen R. Harris Æ Linda Mason Æ

Barbara Fink-Chorzempa Æ Susan Moran Æ Bruce Saddler

Published online: 22 May 2007

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract A random sample of primary grade teachers from across the United
States was surveyed about their instructional practices in handwriting. Nine out of
every ten teachers indicated that they taught handwriting, averaging 70 minutes of
instruction per week. Only 12% of teachers, however, indicated that the education
courses taken in college adequately prepared them to teach handwriting. Despite
this lack of formal preparation, the majority of teachers used a variety of recom-
mended instructional practices for teaching handwriting. The application of such
practices, though, was applied unevenly, raising concerns about the quality of
handwriting instruction for all children.

Keywords Handwriting
Instruction
Teachers
Teacher preparation

Writing

Preparation of this paper was supported by the Center to Accelerate Student Learning, funded by the U.S.
Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs Grant H324V980001.

S. Graham (&)
K. R. Harris

Vanderbilt University, Peabody College Box 328, Nashville, TN 37203, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

L. Mason
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

B. Fink-Chorzempa
State University of New York, New Paltz, NY, USA

S. Moran
Lehigh University, Bethelhem, PA, USA

B. Saddler
State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA

123
50 S. Graham et al.

For adults, the act of handwriting is mostly an unconscious, automatic task

(Willingham, 1998). For beginning writers, however, handwriting is a more
effortful activity, as the processes for producing letters still require conscious
attention (Berninger, 1999; Graham, 1999). Until this skill becomes efficient and
relatively automatic, it may exact a toll on the writer and ultimately writing
development.
Handwriting may constrain beginning writers in at least four ways. One, these
children’s written text may be less accessible to others, because the legibility of
their handwriting is still developing (Graham, 1999). Two, what they say in their
writing may be devalued to some degree, as legibility of text can influence the
evaluation of writing content. For example, when adults are asked to evaluate two or
more versions of a paper differing only in handwriting legibility, lower marks for
overall quality of ideas are assigned to papers that are less legible (Marshall &
Powers, 1969). Three, young children’s handwriting may impede their writing
efforts by interfering with other writing processes (Scardamalia, Bereiter, &
Goleman, 1982). For instance, having to switch attention during composing to
thinking about how to form a particular letter may lead a child to forget writing
ideas or plans being held in working memory. They are also likely to lose some
writing ideas, as their handwriting is often not fast enough for them to record all of
their ideas before they start forgetting some of them (Graham, 1990). Four,
difficulties with handwriting may constrain young children’s development as
writers. McCutchen (1995) proposed that transcription skills such as handwriting
are so demanding for beginning writers, that they minimize the use of other writing
processes, such as planning and revising, because they exert considerable process-
ing demands as well. Moreover, Berninger, Mizokawa, and Bragg (1991) reported
that difficulties with handwriting and spelling led children they worked with to
avoid writing and develop a mind set that they could not write.
If handwriting plays an important role in shaping writing development, as the
arguments above suggest, Graham and Harris (2000) argued that it is reasonable to
expect that: (1) the handwriting of more skilled writers is superior to that of less
skilled writers, (2) students’ handwriting improves with age and schooling,
(3) individual differences in handwriting predict individual differences in writing,
and (4) teaching handwriting improves the writing performance of developing
writers. A recent review by Graham (2006) found that the available literature
provides some support for each of these assumptions.
First, the handwriting skills of children with poor handwriting are less well
developed than those of their normally developing counterparts. Their handwriting
is not as smooth, accurate, or legible (see Graham & Weintraub, 1996). They are
also more variable in their production of letter forms (Wann & Kardirkamanathan,
1991) and produce handwriting more slowly (Weintraub & Graham, 1998).
Second, there is a considerable body of research showing that handwriting
improves with age and schooling (see Graham & Weintraub, 1996). Although
overall legibility may peak somewhere around fourth grade (Mojet, 1991), students
continue to make modifications in how they produce letter forms (for example, they
may simplify script by eliminating clockwise movements (see Blote & Hamstra-
Bletz, 1991), and their fluency with handwriting increases by about 10 letters or

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 51

more per minute, before it starts to level off at the start of high school (Graham,
Berninger, Weintraub, & Schaefer, 1998).
Third, individual differences in handwriting predict writing achievement. As part
of a study examining the relationship between text transcription skills and writing
performance, Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, and Whitaker (1997) reviewed 13
studies. They reported that handwriting fluency was moderately correlated with
measures of writing achievement. In the empirical study they conducted,
handwriting and spelling skills together accounted for a sizable proportion of the
variance in the writing skills of 600 first through sixth grade children (up to 42% of
the variance in writing quality and 66% of the variance in writing output). Of these
two skills, only handwriting fluency continued to make a unique contribution
beyond the primary grades in accounting for variability in how much and how well
students wrote.
Fourth, even though the research base is relatively thin, teaching handwriting to
young writers can improve writing performance. Three studies found that
handwriting instruction not only improved young students’ handwriting, but one
or more aspects of their writing performance as well, including sentence
construction skills, writing output, and writing quality (Berninger et al., 1997;
Graham, Harris, & Fink, 2000; Jones & Christensen, 1999).
Despite the relative importance of handwriting, both theoretically and empirically,
we know little about how it is taught to young, developing writers. In contrast to
spelling (see for example Brann & Hattie, 1995; Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Fink-
Chorzempa, 2003; Traynelis-Yurek & Strong, 1999), there have been few attempts to
catalogue handwriting instructional practices in today’s schools. There has been some
speculation (Graham & Weintaub, 1996), especially by the media, (see for example
Leo, 2002) that handwriting is not emphasized or taught to young developing writers.
It is difficult to verify this assumption, as the last published survey of handwriting
practices was conducted in the early 1980s (Rubin & Henderson, 1982).
A recent study by Graham et al. (2003) provides some tentative evidence on this
issue, however. They conducted a survey of the writing instructional practices of
primary grade teachers randomly selected from throughout the United States.
Although their study focused on the types of instructional adaptations teachers made
for struggling writers, teachers were asked how often they taught handwriting skills
to their students. Almost half of the teachers reported teaching handwriting daily,
with one fourth indicating that they provided instruction several times a week, and
another 14% indicating they taught this skill weekly. Only about 2% of the teachers
indicated that they did not teach handwriting at all.
Although these findings suggest that teachers of young children do value
handwriting and teach it, additional research is needed to establish replicability and
to more fully determine how handwriting is taught in today’s schools. The current
study addressed both of these points by surveying a randomly selected sample of
primary grade teachers from throughout the United States and asking them if they
taught handwriting, and if this was the case, how it was taught. Teachers were also
asked to describe their students in terms of their handwriting skills, including
their facility with handwriting legibility and fluency, number of students with
handwriting difficulties, and types of handwriting problems. Teachers’ were further

123
52 S. Graham et al.

asked about how handwriting is learned and should be taught, why children
experience handwriting difficulties, and the impact of handwriting difficulties.
Finally, teachers were queried about whether they liked to teach handwriting and the
amount of formal preparation on teaching handwriting they received in the teacher
education courses taken in college.
Students’ handwriting achievement is likely influenced by the amount of
handwriting instruction provided in the classroom (i.e., more instructional time
should lead to improved handwriting performance), which in turn is influenced by
teachers’ desire to teach this skill (i.e., teachers who enjoy teaching handwriting
devote more time to its mastery by students), and these attitudes are likely shaped by
teachers’ competence (i.e., teachers with good handwriting and greater formal
preparation in how to teach handwriting will be more positively disposed to
teaching it). We tested this set of assumptions by examining if the prediction of
handwriting achievement (as measured by teacher judgments of students’
handwriting performance) was improved by adding measures of teacher attitude
to indexes of teacher competence (i.e., prior teacher education preparation in
handwriting instruction and quality of teachers’ handwriting), and if this prediction
was further improved by adding time devoted to teaching handwriting to this set of
predictors. We examined the viability of this hierarchical model for two estimates of
students’ handwriting skills: legibility and fluency.

Method

Subjects

A stratified random sampling procedure was used to identify 249 first through third
grade teachers from the population of primary grade teachers in the United States.
The names were randomly selected from a list complied by Market Data Retrieval
so that there were an equal number of teachers in grades 1, 2, and 3. This registry
contained the names of over 1,600,000 elementary school teachers from over 72,000
public and private schools.
Of the 249 teachers identified, 68% (n = 169) agreed to participate in the study.
Demographic information for the 169 responders as well as the 80 nonresponders
are presented in Table 1. Chi-square analyses revealed that there were no
statistically significant differences between responders and nonresponders in terms
of grade, type of school, and location of school (all ps > .09). No analysis was done
for gender, as only 4 of the 249 teachers were male. Analyses of variance further
indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in school size or
annual expenditure for materials per pupil in the schools where the responders and
nonresponders taught (both ps > .52). Consequently, responders did not differ from
nonresponders on these demographic variables, providing verification that they were
representative of the sample as a whole.
As can be seen in Table 1, the 169 teachers that agreed to participate were
distributed almost equally among the three grades. These teachers were
overwhelmingly female, and 76% worked in a public school. Thirty-nine percent

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 53

Table 1 Characteristics of responders and nonrespeonders

Variable Responders Nonresponders

Gender of teacher
Male 2% (N = 4) 0% (N = 0)
Female 98% (N = 165) 100% (N = 80)
Grade
First 33% (N = 56) 33% (N = 27)
Second 33% (N = 57) 32% (N = 26)
Third 33% (N = 56) 33% (N = 27)
Type of school
Public 76% (N = 129) 76% (N = 61)
Private 23% (N = 40) 23% (N = 19)
Location
Urban 33% (N = 56) 31% (N = 25)
Suburban 39% (N = 67) 30% (N = 24)
Rural 27% (N = 46) 38% (N = 31)
Size of school
M 409.5 430.1
SD 225.7 259.5
Material expenditures/pupil
M $78.00 $80.15
SD $28.85 $25.02

Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation

of the participants taught in a school in a suburban area, 33% in an urban area, and
27% in a rural area. Average school size was 410 students, but there was
considerable variability across schools. Expenditures per pupil for instructional
materials was $78.
The participating teachers averaged 15.2 years of teaching experience (Range = 1
to 40; SD = 10.2). The average class size was 19.3 (Range = 5 to 35; SD = 4.7), and
approximately 70% of the children in the participating teachers’ classes were White,
13% Black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 3% Other. Teachers reported that 37%
(Range = 0% to 100%;SD = 34%) of the children in their class received free or
reduced cost lunch and 9% received special education services (SD = 11%). On
average they reported that students spent 2 hours and 33 minutes writing during a
typical week, but there was considerable variability in time spent writing
(SD = 2 hours and 20 minutes). Finally, 53% of the teachers indicated that their
highest degree was a Bachelor degree, 45% had a Masters degree, and 1% had a
Doctoral degree.

Instrument

Teachers were asked to complete a survey containing five sections. The first section
collected demographic information about their teaching experience (i.e., number of

123
54 S. Graham et al.

years spent teaching), educational level, quality of their formal preparation for
teaching handwriting, and composition of their classroom. This included informa-
tion on number of children, racial composition of the class, as well as number of
students receiving free or reduced cost lunch, special education, and occupational
therapy services. They were also asked to describe any handwriting instruction
provided by occupational therapists. Teachers were further asked to indicate how
many of their children were experiencing handwriting difficulties, identify the most
common handwriting problems experienced by their children, which lower-case and
upper-case letters of the alphabet were most difficult for their students and how
many minutes their students spend writing during a typical week.
The second section of the survey asked a variety of questions about teachers’
beliefs about handwriting and handwriting instruction. This included questions
about who had better handwriting: boys or girls; right-handers or left-handers? Why
children had difficulty with handwriting? What aspects of school performance (e.g.,
grades) and personal attributes (e.g., self-concept) were influenced by handwriting
difficulties? Whether handwriting should be taught as a separate subject (and when
this should occur)? Whether manuscript or cursive should be taught to students (and
when this should occur)? What percentage of student learning in handwriting was
due to directly teaching handwriting as well as incidental learning (e.g., writing
frequently)?
Section three assessed teachers’ attitudes about teaching handwriting, beliefs
about the quality of students’ handwriting, and estimates of students’ handwriting
skills. Teachers responded to 5 questions, using a five-point Likert-type scale. For the
first four questions, the scale ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).
Two of the questions assessed whether teachers liked teaching handwriting (‘‘I look
forward to teaching handwriting’’ and ‘‘I do not like to teach handwriting’’). Two
other questions asked teachers to rate the adequacy of their students’ handwriting
(‘‘The legibility of my students’ handwriting is not as good as it should be’’ and ‘‘My
students’ handwriting is fast enough so that they can keep up with classroom
assignments’’). Scores for the two negatively worded items were reversed before
analysis. The Likert-type scale for the fifth question (which asked teachers to rate the
quality of their handwriting) ranged from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
The fourth section asked teachers a variety of questions about how they taught
handwriting. This included asking them to identify any commercial program they
used to teach handwriting, the amount of time devoted to handwriting instruction
each week (and how that time was distributed), the type of script taught, how
students were organized for instruction (i.e., whole class, small group, individual
instruction, other), type of writing instruments and paper used, the sequence for
teaching letters, and how handwriting performance was assessed. Teachers were
also asked how letter formation, pencil grip, paper placement, and fluency were
promoted or taught. They were further asked what special provisions they made for
teaching handwriting to left-handed students.
Section five asked teachers to identify the modifications or adaptations they made
for students with poor handwriting. This included a checklist containing 10 items
(e.g., allow students to dictate written assignments) as well as open ended questions
asking them to identify other modifications or adaptations they made.

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 55

Procedures

A cover letter, the survey, and a stamped return envelope were mailed to each
teacher during the first week of February. The cover letter indicated that we were
conducting a survey to gather information on the teaching of handwriting. Teachers
were asked to return the material in the next two weeks if possible. To encourage
completion and return of the materials, a two-dollar bill was included in the
package, as a ‘‘thank you’’ for taking the time to fill out the surveys.
Sixty-five percent (N = 110) of the completed surveys were completed and
returned on the first mailing. The second mailing occurred during the second week
of March and accounted for another 59 surveys (35% of the completed surveys).

Results

We first describe teachers’ estimates of their students’ handwriting skills as well as

their assessment of the number and types of handwriting problems in their class.
Such information helps to establish part of the context within which teachers’
instruction (or lack of it) is situated. Second, teachers’ responses to questions about
whether they teach handwriting, and if they did, how they taught it, including the
types of instruction provided by occupational therapists as well as the types of
instructional adaptations the participating teachers make for their weaker hand-
writers. Third, we examined teachers’ beliefs about how handwriting is learned,
why children experience handwriting difficulties, and the impact of handwriting
difficulties. This is followed by a series of regression analysis that examined the role
of teacher competence, attitudes, and instructional time in predicting students’
reported handwriting proficiency.
With the exception of the regression analyses, we examined if teachers’
responses were related to the grade they taught. Because of the large number of
analyses, we set the alpha level at .01. An even more conservative probability level
was not established to help avoid the possibility of committing a Type II error.
Grade was not statistically significant for most analyses. When grade effects were
statistically significant, they are reported along with the means and standard
deviations for each grade.

Students’ handwriting

Legibility and fluency

When asked about their students’ handwriting, teachers’ responses were generally
neutral when assessing overall legibility. On a 5-point scale (with a higher score
representing greater competence), the mean score was 3.11 (SD = 1.04). Only 39%
of teachers agreed (a score of 4 or greater) that their students’ handwriting was
adequate. Likewise, teachers were generally neutral about students’ handwriting
fluency (M = 3.40; SD = .92), with 46% indicating that students’ handwriting was
fast enough to keep up with classroom demands.

123
56 S. Graham et al.

Handwriting difficulties

Teachers also indicated that 23% (SD = 14%) of the children in their class experienced
difficulty with handwriting. This figure is slightly higher than earlier research
estimates that typically ranged from 12% to 21% (Graham & Weintraub, 1996).
When teachers were asked to identify the most common handwriting problems
experienced by students in their class, more than half of them noted problems with
overall neatness (76%), spacing between words (66%), letter size (59%), letter
formation (57%), alignment of letters (54%), and reversals (52%). Of these six more
common problems, only spacing between words and reversals were mediated by
students’ grade. Spacing between words became less problematic with schooling, as
80% of teachers reported that this was a problem in first grade, 72% in second grade,
and 46% in third grade, X2 (2, N = 169) = 15.65, p < .001. Similarly, reversals
became less problematic with schooling, as 66% of teachers reported that this was a
problem in first grade, 60% in second grade, and 29% in third grade, X2 (2,
N = 169) = 18.06, p < .001.
The next most common handwriting problems identified by teachers involved
spacing within words (46% of teachers), handwriting grip (41%), uniformity of slant
(36%), and writing too fast (31%). Problems with uniformity of slant were mediated
by grade level, X2 (2, N = 169) = 9.64, p = .008, as was writing too fast, X2 (2,
N = 169) = 10.92, p = .004. Uniformity of slant was only a problem for 32% and
25% of first and second grade teachers, respectively, but rose to 52% by third grade.
This is likely related to a change in the type of script being taught, as 91% of third
grade teachers taught cursive writing, whereas the majority of first and second grade
teachers taught manuscript (the slant of manuscript is typically vertical, whereas
cursive is more diagonal). In terms of students writing too fast, only 27% and 20%
of first and third grade teachers reported this as a problem, respectively, but almost
half of the second grade teachers (47%) viewed this as problematic.
The least common handwriting problems identified by teachers included writing
too slow (25%), posture (22%), placement of paper (17%), prints too lightly (8%),
and prints too darkly (7%). The percent of teachers reporting these problems were
not mediated by the grade level.

Difficult letters

When teachers were asked to identify the most common lower case letters that their
students had difficulty mastering, 7 letters accounted for one-half of the letters
named: b (11%), q (9%), d (9%), k (6%), g (6%), and p (6%). This finding is similar
to Graham, Weintraub, and Berninger’s (2001) observation that a small number of
lower case letters are problematic for primary grade children; they found that 6
letters (q, z, u, j, n, a) accounted for 51% of all illegible lower case letters.
Nevertheless, the letters identified by teachers as problematic in this study were only
moderately correlated (r = .44) with the letters that were scored as illegible by
Graham et al. (2001).
The most common upper case or capital letters identified as problematic by
teachers in this study were K (9%), Y (7%), Z (7%), W (6%), R (6%), M (6%), F

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 57

(6%), and D (6%). These 8 letters accounted for 53% of all of the letters identified.
There was only a moderate correlation (r = .45) between which lower and upper
case letters teachers viewed as problematic.

Handwriting practices

Is handwriting taught?

Almost four out of every five teachers (79%) indicated that their school or school
district required that handwriting be taught. Moreover, 90% of the participating
teachers indicated that they taught handwriting. On average, teachers indicated that
they spent 70 minutes a week teaching handwriting. There was considerable
variability in reported instructional time, however, as the standard deviation was
55 minutes. For those who taught handwriting, instructional time ranged from
2 minutes to an hour a day. About one in of every two teachers (52%) spent
10 minutes or less a day teaching handwriting, with one in eight teachers (13%)
spending 5 minutes or less.
Slightly more than one-half of the teachers (56%) reported teaching handwriting
daily. Another one-third of teachers (34%) taught handwriting several times a week.
One in every ten teachers taught handwriting just once a week. In addition, the
average reported amount of time for each handwriting instructional session was
19.4 minutes (SD = 9.47).
Teachers who taught just once a week spent 25 minutes per lesson (SD = 10.22),
whereas teachers who taught daily or several times a week spent 20 minutes
(SD = 9.66) and 19 minutes (SD = 8.70) per lesson, respectively. There was a
statistically significant difference in total time of between teachers who taught more
or less frequently during a week, F (2, 136) = 10.18, Mse = 2661.7, p = .001, with
teachers who taught daily or several times a week spending more time teaching this
skill (both p’s < .003) than teachers who taught once a week.
Handwriting instruction in the participating teachers’ classrooms almost always
involved whole class lessons, as 93% of the participants indicated that they used this
instructional arrangement. Seven teachers (5%) reported that they taught handwriting
in small groups, with another 4 teachers (3%) providing individualized instruction.
Almost three out of every five teachers (61%) reported using a commercial
program to teach handwriting. Of the 94 teachers who reported using a commercial
program, 63% used either the Zaner-Bloser Handwriting program or D’Nealian
Handwriting program published by Scott-Forsman. The primary difference between
these two programs is that the former has vertical manuscript letters (i.e., traditional
manuscript), whereas the latter employs a slanted manuscript alphabet. There was
no other program used by more than 5% of the teachers.

What type of script is taught?

Slightly more than one-third (37%) of the teachers reported that they taught
traditional manuscript letters (ball and stick, vertical slant). Most of these teachers
taught first or second grade (89%), but about 11% of them taught third grade.

123
58 S. Graham et al.

Slightly more than one in every five teachers (22%) taught slanted manuscript letters
(D’Nealian). Again most of these teachers taught first or second grade (83%), with
17% teaching slanted manuscript letters in grade 3. Cursive was the most common
script, as half of the teachers reported teaching it. Most of these were third grade
teachers (63%), but a sizable number were second grade teachers (31%); only 6%
were first grade teachers. Italics was only taught by 2 first grade teachers (1%). The
percentages for vertical and slanted manuscript, cursive, and italics sum to more
than 100%, as 17% of the teachers taught more than a single script during a year.
Teachers who taught two scripts a year were equally divided between second and
third grade teachers who taught traditional manuscript and cursive or slanted
manuscript and cursive.
The teaching of traditional manuscript was mediated by grade-level, X2 (2,
N = 157) = 22.9, p < .001, as was the teaching of cursive writing, X2 (2,
N = 157) = 69.95, p < .001. There was a decline in the teaching of traditional
manuscript from grades 1 through 3 (52% grade 1, 47% grade 2, and 11% grade 3),
but an increase in the teaching of cursive (10% grade 1, 47% grade 2, 91% grade 3).

What is the order for teaching letters?

Slightly more than one half of the teachers (51%) reported that they taught lower
case letters first. Approximately one in five teachers (21%) indicated that they
taught lower and upper case letters together. Capitals were only taught first by 4% of
the teachers, and 6% of teachers noted that they taught letters in alphabetical
sequence. While the majority of teachers (61%) grouped letters together for the
purposes of instruction, a sizable minority (30%) taught one letter at a time.

How are letters taught?

The percent of teachers who reported using frequently recommended procedures

(Graham & Miller, 1980; Graham 1999; Graham & Harris, 2002) for teaching letter
formation are presented in Table 2. Modeling letter formation, praising student
performance, and students tracing and copying of letters during practice were used
by almost four out of every five teachers. Other commonly used procedures included
students identifying their best formed letters; students correcting malformed letters;
the use of arrows, numbers or cues to guide letter formation; and physically
directing a student’s hand to demonstrate letter formation. Less commonly
employed procedures were students verbalizing steps for forming a letter while
writing it, comparing/contrasting how different letters are formed; writing the letters
from memory, and saying the name of the letter while practicing it. Rarely used
procedures included students identifying their worst formed letter and tangible
reinforcement for performance with tokens, free time, and so forth.
Teachers also reported that students typically practiced writing each letter 11.5
times during each handwriting lesson. There was considerable variability in amount
of practice, as the SD was 10.3.
Grade mediated the use of only one of the letter formation procedures:
verbalization of how to form steps during practice, X2 (2, N = 163) = 10.15,

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 59

Table 2 Primary grade teachers’ use of specific instructional procedures for teaching letter formation
Instructional procedures Percent of teachers who use

Teacher models letter formation 97%

Teacher praises student for performance 86%
Student traces letter 80%
Student copies letter 79%
Student identified best formed letters 69%
Student corrects malformed letters 66%
Arrows, numbers, or cues used to show letter formation 61%
Teacher physically direct students’ hand to demonstrate letter formation 53%
Student verbalizes steps for forming letter while practicing it 47%
Teacher compares/contrasts how letters are formed 45%
Student writes the letter from memory 37%
Student says letter name while practicing it 27%
Student identified worst formed letters 15%
Student reinforced for performance with free time, tokens, and so forth 12%

p = .006. This practice became less common with schooling (60% grade 1, 50%
grade 2; 30% grade 3).

What other instructional procedures do teachers use?

Teacher use of other instructional procedures and materials for promoting

handwriting development are presented in Table 3. In terms of writing materials,
about a third of the teachers required students to use a special pen or pencil for
handwriting instruction. Of the 46 teachers who required a special writing
instrument, all but 1 of them insisted on a pencil, with 6 teachers requiring a
beginner’s pencil (this pencil has a larger diameter). More frequently used was wide-
lined paper, but its use was mediated by grade, X2 (2, N = 152) = 15.09, p = .001, and
declined with schooling (82% grade 1, 65% grade 2, and 45% grade 3).
Four out of every five teachers reported that they taught students how they
should hold a pencil and position their paper when writing. The most common
procedures for teaching both pencil grip and paper position involved modeling the
correct grip or position, reminders to use correctly, observation and correction, and
praise for correct use. One or more of these techniques were used by over 80% of
the teachers. One out of every four teachers also indicated that they used pencil
grips. These are about an inch in length, with three-sides (like a triangle) and a
hole in the middle so that they can slide onto the pencil. They are placed at the
front of the pencil where students’ fingers should be located, and each side of
the triangle provides a place for putting the thumb, index, and middle finger,
respectively.
Slightly more than one-half of the teachers indicated that they promoted
students’ handwriting by having students write a lot or through the use copying
exercises. Less than one in every ten teachers used timed-writing exercises to

123
60 S. Graham et al.

Table 3 Writing materials and instructional practices used to promote good writing habits, enhance
fluency and motivation, and teach left-handed writers
Instructional procedures Percent of teachers who use

Writing materials
Use wide-lined paper 64%
Require a certain kind of pen or pencil 29%
Teach grip & paper position
Proper pencil grip 81%
Paper position 81%
Promote handwriting fluency
Write frequently 59%
Copying exercises 56%
Timed writing exercises 7%
Promote motivation
Display examples of students’ best handwriting 58%
Special provisions for left-handed students
Paper position 93%
Left-handed model 34%
Proper pencil grip 23%
Group left-handers together 7%

promote handwriting fluency. A small percentage of teachers (4%) indicated

that they did not view the development of fluency as important for such young
children.
We asked teachers about four possible special provisions in teaching handwriting
to left-handed students (taken from Graham & Miller, 1980). Almost all of the
teachers indicated that they showed these students how to properly position their
paper (i.e., turned somewhat clockwise). Only about a third of the teachers
encouraged these students to hold their pencil slightly farther back than right
handers or had a left handed person model how to form letters. The teachers rarely
grouped left-handed students together for handwriting instruction.

Is handwriting assessed and graded?

Three out of every five teachers reported giving students a grade for penmanship.
For many students, such grades were likely based on informal or subjective
evaluations. Only 6% of teachers reported using a norm-referenced test to assess
students’ handwriting. The most common reported means of assessment involved
informal observations (44% of teachers; e.g., ‘‘I note spacing and readability) and
the use of checklists (38% of teachers). Evaluations to select students’ best
handwriting for the purpose of displaying it was made by slightly more than one-
half of the teachers (see Table 3).

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 61

What adaptations and modifications do teachers make for students with poor
handwriting?

The percent of teachers who made 10 specific adaptations/modifications for students

with poor handwriting are presented in Table 4. On average, teachers reported that
they employed 4.57 (SD = 2.17) of these procedures, with the most common ones
involving extra encouragement, one-on-one instruction, extra time to complete
writing assignments, and additional handwriting conferences with students. About
two in every five teachers provided extra handwriting lessons and modified writing
assignments for students with weaker handwriting. Less frequently used procedures
included additional conferences with parents, modifying grading criteria for written
assignments, and using the computer or dictation as a means for composing.
However, computer use was mediated by grade-level, X2 (2, N = 162) = 12.17,
p = .002, with this becoming a more frequently used option in later grades (9% used
in grade 1, 19% in grade 2, and 36% in grade 3).

Do students who have poor handwriting receive occupational therapy?

About 2% (SD = 4%) of the teachers’ students received help from an occupational
therapist. This help was most often described as working just on fine and/or gross
motor skills (44%), followed by handwriting instruction only (32%), and
handwriting/motor skills instruction (20%).

Teachers’ beliefs about handwriting

Teachers were asked to share their evaluations and beliefs about factors ranging
from their formal preparation for teaching handwriting to the possible negative
consequences of handwriting difficulties. A summary of their responses to these
questions are presented in Table 5.

Table 4 Adaptations/modifications primary grade teachers make for students who experience difficulty
with handwriting
Type of adaptation/modification Percent ofteachers who use

Provide extra encouragement 82%

Provide one-on-one instruction 72%
Extra time to complete writing assignments 62%
Additional conferences with students about handwriting 61%
Extra handwriting lessons 41%
Modify writing assignments 41%
Additional parent conferences about handwriting 33%
Modify how written assignments are graded 25%
Allow students to complete writing assignments on the computer 22%
Allow students to dictate written assignments 20%

123
62 S. Graham et al.

Table 5 Primary grade teachers’ beliefs about handwriting

Topic

Teacher Scores
Formal preparation to teach handwriting 1.53 (SD = 1.48)
Quality of own handwriting 3.71 (SD = .83)
Attitudes about teaching
I like to teach handwriting 4.01 (SD = 1.12)
I look forward to teaching 3.44 (SD = 1.13)
Handwriting instruction
% of handwriting growth due to 56% (SD = 25%)
directly teaching handwriting
% of handwriting growth due to 43% (SD = 25%)
indirect teaching methods
Teach as separate subject 93% yes 7% no
Students develop own handwriting 57% yes 43% no
style
Teach manuscript 98% yes 2% no
Teach cursive 98% yes 2% no
Children’s handwriting
Better handwriting 46% girls 5% boys 49% neither
Better handwriting 56% right handers 0% left handers 44% neither
Why do children have handwriting difficulties?
Motor problems 95% yes
Visual perceptual problems 73% yes
Poor motivation 45% yes
Start school unprepared 36% yes
General academic difficulties 31% yes
Low IQ 10% yes
What are the consequences of poor handwriting
Students need more time to complete 80% yes
writing assignments
Reduces writing output 74% yes
Negative impact on quality of writing 68% yes
Lower grades on written work 57% yes
Negative impact on spelling 46% yes
Impedes note taking 46% yes
Lower self-concept 42% yes
Attitudes toward school 25% yes
Negative impact on reading 15% yes

Note: Formal preparation to teach handwriting assessed on 6-point, Likert-type scale with 0 = no prep-
aration and 6 = extensive preparation; quality of own handwriting was rated on a 5-point Likert-scale,
with 1 = poor and 5 = excellent; the two questions about attitudes toward teaching handwriting were
assessed via a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly;SD = standard
deviation

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 63

Were teachers taught how to teach handwriting?

The participating teachers were asked to indicate how much formal preparation on
teaching handwriting they received in the teacher education courses they took in
college. They rated amount of formal preparation on a 6 point scale, where a score
of 0 indicated no preparation, 2 minimal preparation, 4 adequate preparation, and 6
extensive preparation. Their average score was below the minimal mark (see
Table 5). Overall, only 12% of the teachers indicated their preparation was adequate
(a score of 4 or above).

Do teachers like to teach handwriting?

Teachers were asked two questions that examined their attitudes toward teaching
handwriting. They rated whether they liked teaching handwriting and if they looked
forward to teaching it on a 5 point scale, with higher scores representing a more
positive attitude. They were neutral about looking forward to teaching handwriting,
but generally agreed that they liked to teach it (see Table 5).

How do teachers judge their own handwriting?

Using a 5-point scale, ranging from poor to excellent, teachers rated the quality of
their own handwriting positively, but did not rate it as excellent (see Table 5). None
of the teachers rated their handwriting as poor.

How much growth in handwriting is due to directly teaching handwriting skills?

Teachers were asked to indicate what percentage of children’s learning in

handwriting is due to directly teaching this skill and to incidental learning (e.g.,
handwriting is learned as a result of writing frequently). Although teachers thought
that both were important contributors to handwriting development, they indicated
that direct instruction was more important than incidental learning, F (1,
143) = 10.16, Mse = 1259.8, p = .002.

Should handwriting be taught as a separate subject?

Teachers overwhelmingly believed that handwriting should be taught as a separate

subject (see Table 5). All of the teachers who taught handwriting expressed this
sentiment, as well as 5 teachers who did not teach it.

Should both manuscript and cursive handwriting be taught?

All but 4 teachers indicated that both manuscript and cursive handwriting should be
taught to students (see Table 5). Most of them thought that manuscript instruction
should start in kindergarten (87%) or first grade (10%). The majority of teachers
thought that cursive instruction should start in second (48%) or third grade (45%).

123
64 S. Graham et al.

Slightly more than one-half of the teachers believed that students should be allowed
to personalize the script they were taught.

Who are better handwriters?

Although one-half of the teachers thought that the handwriting of girls and boys
does not differ, most of the remaining respondents believed that girls had better
handwriting (see Table 5). A similar pattern occurred when teachers were asked to
judge the handwriting of left- and right-handers. Almost one-half thought there was
no difference between the two groups, but the remaining teachers uniformly
indicated that right-handers were better.

Why do children have handwriting difficulties?

Motor problems and visual perceptual problems were the most common reasons
teachers listed as the causes of handwriting difficulties (see Table 5). Teachers were
less likely to attribute poor handwriting to motivation, starting school unprepared,
general academic difficulties, or low intelligence. Thirty seven teachers provided
additional reasons for handwriting difficulties, with 41% of these citing poorly
designed handwriting instruction as the culprit, 16% indicating that students were
not developmentally ready to start handwriting instruction, and 11% blaming
parents for teaching handwriting incorrectly at home.

What are the consequences of poor handwriting?

When asked about 9 possible consequences of poor handwriting, more than half of
the teachers indicated that difficulty with this skill influenced how long it took
students to complete written assignments, had a negative impact on the quantity and
quality of students’ writing, and resulted in lower grades on written assignments
(see Table 5). Approximately two out of every five teachers indicated that poor
handwriting had a negative impact on spelling, impeded note taking, and adversely
influenced self-concept. A relatively small number of teachers indicated that
problems with this skill had a negative influence on attitudes toward school or
reading development.

Predicting handwriting achievement

To test our hypothesized model of handwriting achievement, we conducted two

hierarchical regression analyses. In both analyses, two measures of teacher
competence were first entered into the formula together. These were teachers’
judgments about the quality of their handwriting and the amount of formal
preparation obtained in college teacher education courses. Next, scores for two
items measuring attitudes about teaching handwriting were entered into the formula
as a block. These items asked teachers to rate how much they looked forward to
teaching handwriting and if they liked to teach it. Finally, the amount of time
teachers indicated they taught handwriting was entered into the formula as a

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 65

separate variable. One of the hierarchical regression analyses focused on predicting

teacher judgments of their students’ legibility, whereas the other concentrated on
handwriting fluency. The results for both analyses are presented in Table 6.
In the first analysis examining handwriting legibility, the hypothesized hierar-
chical model was only partially confirmed. Entering measures of teacher compe-
tence in the first position accounted for a small, but significant amount of the
variability in teacher judgments of their students’ handwriting legibility. This
prediction was enhanced by the addition of the two questions assessing attitudes
about teaching handwriting. The inclusion of the instructional time variable, did not
significantly improve prediction of the criterion measure, however. All together, the
three sets of variables only accounted for 13% of the variance.
The analysis involving handwriting fluency was fully compatible with the
hypothesized hierarchical model. Entering measures of teacher competence in the
first position accounted for a small, but significant amount of variance. Prediction
was subsequently enhanced by the sequential addition of the attitudes toward
teaching items and the instructional time variable. As in the prior analysis, the three
sets of variables accounted for a relatively small amount of variance (14%).

Discussion

Handwriting is important because it influences both the reader and writer (Graham
& Harris, 2000). The reader forms impressions about the quality of ideas in a hand
written paper based on the legibility of text, and illegibilities may make part or all of
the text impossible to read. Handwriting can also interfere with specific aspects of
writing such as content generation, especially for young children who are still
mastering this skill, whereas, difficulties acquiring this skill may lead some
beginning writers to avoid writing, resulting in arrested writing development
(Berninger, 1999; Graham, 1999). Experimental studies further demonstrate that
teaching this skill to primary grade children can have a positive impact on both their
handwriting as well as their writing (Berninger et al., 1997; Graham, et al., 2000;
Jones & Christensen, 1999). Despite the importance of handwriting to early writing

Table 6 Hierarchical regression analysis for teacher judgments of students’ handwriting legibility and
fluency
Predictor Simple R R2 R2 increment p change

Handwriting Legibility
Teacher competence 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.015
Attitude towards teaching 0.36 0.13 0.07 0.006
Instructional time 0.36 0.13 0 0.471
Handwriting Fluency
Teacher competence 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.016
Attitude towards teaching 0.33 0.11 0.05 0.023
Instructional time 0.38 0.14 0.03 0.025

123
66 S. Graham et al.

development, there has been concern about if and how this skill is taught to young
children (Graham & Weintraub, 1996; Leo, 2002).
The findings from the current study provide some welcome news for advocates of
explicit and systematic handwriting instruction for young developing writers.
Primary grade teachers in the current study, drawn randomly from public and
private schools across the United States, indicated that they taught handwriting, with
80% of their school districts requiring the teaching of this skill and 90% of them
indicating that they provided an average of 70 minutes of instruction per week. This
corroborates the findings from an earlier study that most primary grade teachers in
the United States teach handwriting (Graham et al., 2003). Furthermore, the average
amount of time devoted to instruction was generally consistent with recommen-
dations to devote 50 to 100 minutes of instructional time each week to handwriting
(Graham & Miller, 1980).
The frequency with which a minority of the teachers taught handwriting in this
and the prior Graham et al. (2003) investigation raises one reason for concern. In the
previous study, 25% of teachers taught handwriting once a week or less (2% did not
teach it at all), whereas in this study 10% of teachers taught handwriting just once a
week and 10% did not teach it at all. Handwriting is a motor skill and like most
motor skills it is best learned through spaced practice (Graham & Miller, 1980).
Thus, teaching it once a week or less is not preferable to teaching it several times a
week or daily.
Of course, the effectiveness of handwriting instruction is not just dependent on
providing instruction, but on what happens when instruction is delivered. Another
area for concern was the finding that only 12% of the participating teachers reported
that they received adequate preparation to teach handwriting in their college
education courses. Lack of either instructional knowledge or knowledge of
handwriting development could weaken the quality of teachers’ handwriting
instruction. College education courses are not the sole repository of such
knowledge, however, as teachers can obtain information and expertise through
ongoing professional development as well as through the process of actually
teaching handwriting. Unfortunately, we did not ask teachers about other sources
where they may have learned about handwriting.
Lack of formal preparation in college teacher education courses may be offset by
teachers’ use of commercial materials. Three out of every five teachers indicated
that they used commercial materials for handwriting instruction. Ninety percent of
these teachers used one of the well know basal handwriting programs such as the
Zaner-Bloser program. Programs like this one provide both teaching materials and
generally well designed teaching procedures (Sawyer, Graham & Harris, 1992).
This provides no guarantee, though, that teachers use the materials as intended.
In any event, there were some reasons for optimism about the quality of
handwriting instruction provided by teachers. First, when teaching students how to
write letters, 60% or more of the teachers used the following effective practices (see
Graham & Harris, 1989; 2002; Graham & Miller, 1980): modeled how to form the
letter, students practiced the letter by tracing it and writing it from copy, praised
students’ for correct letter formation, and directed students to correct malformed
letters as well as identify their best formed letters. Most teachers also taught

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 67

students proper pencil grip and paper position, including how left-handers should
position their paper. Slightly more than one-half of the teachers displayed examples
of students’ best handwriting, whereas a slightly greater percentage of teachers used
specific procedures to promote handwriting fluency. Just as importantly, teachers
commonly made specific adaptations/modifications for students with poorer
handwriting, including extra encouragement, one-on-one instruction, extra time to
complete written assignments, and additional conferences with students about their
handwriting.
These positive features of handwriting instruction are diminished somewhat by
many teachers not using other proven methods and a minority of teachers using
questionable procedures. For example, effective instructional practices for teaching
letter formation, such as writing the letter from memory of comparing/contrasting
how similar letters are formed (Graham & Miller, 1980) were applied by less than
one half of the teachers. On the other hand, questionable practices, such as
verbalizing the steps for forming a letter while writing it or requiring students to use
a specific writing instrument (see Graham, 1992), were employed by almost a third
or more of the teachers. Likewise, other than showing left-handers how to position
their paper, other frequently recommended provisions (see Graham & Miller, 1980)
for these students were applied by a relatively small percentage of teachers (one-
third or less).
Another possible concern is that teachers’ assessment of handwriting mostly
involves informal techniques that rely heavily on subjective judgments. The fact
that teachers’ judgments about which letters are most difficult for primary grade
students did not provide a good match to the letters identified as difficult via the
systematic study of young children’s writing (see Graham et al., 2001), which raises
concerns about the accuracy of the participating teachers’ evaluations.
It is interesting to note that many teachers had misconceptions about handwriting
development (which also raises questions about the accuracy of their observations
and knowledge about handwriting). Most of the research evidence shows that girls
have better handwriting than boys and that there is no significant difference in the
handwriting legibility and fluency of left handed and right handed students (Graham
& Weintraub, 1996). Nevertheless, only about one-half of the participating teachers
thought that girls had better handwriting, whereas slightly more than one-half of the
teachers indicated that left handed children had better handwriting. Another
example of teachers’ misconceptions involved the development of a personal style
of handwriting. Slightly more than 40% of the teachers thought that students’
handwriting should not deviate from the taught style. This belief is at odds with
what is currently known. It is almost a universal phenomenon for students to modify
the script that they are taught, in part to increase how quickly they can write specific
letters (Graham & Weintraub, 1996).
We also examined the sequential role of three factors in predicting handwriting
achievement (as assessed by teachers’ judgments about the legibility and fluency of
their students’ handwriting). We reasoned that handwriting achievement is
influenced by the amount of time devoted to handwriting instruction, which in
turn is influenced by teachers’ desire to provide handwriting instruction, and that
such attitudes are shaped by teachers’ competence (as measured by the quality of

123
68 S. Graham et al.

teachers’ handwriting and the amount of formal preparation on how to teach

handwriting provided in teacher education courses). To test this line of reasoning,
we examined if the prediction of handwriting achievement was improved by adding
assessments of teacher attitude to our measures of teacher competence, and by
considering if this prediction was further improved by adding time spent teaching
handwriting to the formula. We tested this model for both teachers’ judgments about
students’ legibility and handwriting fluency. For the most part, the data was
consistent with the proposed model. For handwriting fluency, measures of teacher
competence predicted student performance and prediction was enhanced by
sequentially adding measures of attitudes toward teaching and instructional time
to the formula. The same pattern was found for handwriting legibility, except that
the addition of instructional time to the formula did not improve prediction of
student performance. These findings highlight the possible importance of teachers’
competence and attitudes towards the teaching of handwriting, but must be viewed
cautiously, as measures of student performance, instructional time, and teachers’
competence were reported and not actually measured.
Finally, we assumed that teachers would be aware of elements of their teaching
and would be able to relate this knowledge to questions about their instructional
practices. While there is evidence that professionals, including teachers, can
describe what they do when questioned (e.g., Diaper, 1989), the findings from the
study need to be supplemented by additional research where teachers’ instructional
practices in handwriting are observed and not just reported.
In summary, handwriting is being taught by the overwhelming majority of
primary grade teachers in the United States. Nevertheless, only a small percentage
of teachers received adequate preparation on how to teach handwriting in their
college education courses, and teachers’ responses to questions about their
handwriting program suggests that recommended instructional procedures are
applied unevenly.

References

Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during
composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.
Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing
disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57–79.
Berninger, V., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Rogan, L., Brooks, A., Reed, E., & Graham, S. (1997).
Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666.
Bolte, A., & Hansta-Bletz, L. (1991). A longitudinal study of the structure of handwriting. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 72, 983–994.
Braunn, B., & Hattie, J. (1995). Spelling instruction in primary schools. New Zealand Journal of
Educational Studies, 30, 39–49.
Diaper, D. (1989). Knowledge elicitation: Principles, techniques, and application. New York: Wiley.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.
Graham, S. (1992). Issues in handwriting instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25, 1–14.
Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98.

123
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? 69

Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology
(pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in
composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 170–182.
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). Development of handwriting speed and
legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42–51.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000 ).The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing
development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2002). Prevention and intervention for struggling writers. In M. Shinn, G.
Stoner, & H. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and
remedial approaches (pp. 589–610). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., & Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write?
Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
620–633.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., MacArthur, C., & Fink-Chorzempa, B. (2003). Primary grade teachers’
instructional adaptations for weaker writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 279–293.
Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 13, 1–16.
Graham, S., & Weintruab, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from
1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7–87.
Graham, S., Weintruab, N., & Berninger, V. (2001). Which manuscript letters do primary grade children
write legibly. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 488–497.
Jones, D., & Christensen, C. (1999). The relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’
ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49.
Leo, P. (2002, April 13). Tracing the roots of illegible handwriting. Pittsburgh Post- Gazette.
Marshall, J., & Powers, J. (1969). Writing neatness, composition errors, and essay grades. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 6, 97–101.
McCutchen, D. (1995). Cognitive processes in children’s writing: Developmental and individual
differences. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1, 123–160.
Mojet, J. (1991). Characteristics of the developing handwriting skill in elementary education. In J. Wann,
A. Wing, N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills: Research, perspectives and educational
implications (pp. 53–75). London: Academic Press.
Rubin, N., & Henderson, S. (1982). Two sides of the same coin: Variation in teaching methods and failure
to learn to write. Special Education: Forward Trends, 9, 17–24.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In
M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse
(pp. 173–210). New York: Academic Press.
Traynelis-Yurek, E., & Strong, M. (1999). Spelling practices in school districts and regions across the
United States and state spelling standards. Reading Horizons, 39, 279–294.
Wann, J., & Kardiramanathan, M. (1991). Variability in children’s handwriting: Computer diagnosis of
writing difficulties. In J. Wann, A. Wing, N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills: Research,
perspectives and educational implications (pp. 223–236). London: Academic Press.
Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (1998). Writing legibly and quickly: A study of children’s ability to adjust
their handwriting to meet common classroom demands. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 146–152.
Willingham, D. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105,
558–584.

123
View publication stats