Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Handwriting Instruction

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While there are many ways to author text today, writing with paper and pen (or pencil) is still quite common at home and work, and predominates writing at school. Because handwriting can bias readers’ judgments about the ideas in a text and impact other writing processes, like planning and text generation, it is important to ensure students develop legible and fluent handwriting. This meta-analysis examined true- and quasi-experimental intervention studies conducted with K-12 students to determine if teaching handwriting enhanced legibility and fluency and resulted in better writing performance. When compared to no instruction or non-handwriting instructional conditions, teaching handwriting resulted in statistically greater legibility (ES = 0.59) and fluency (ES = 0.63). Motor instruction did not produce better handwriting skills (ES = 0.10 for legibility and −0.07 for fluency), but individualizing handwriting instruction (ES = 0.69) and teaching handwriting via technology (ES = 0.85) resulted in statistically significant improvements in legibility. Finally, handwriting instruction produced statistically significant gains in the quality (ES = 0.84), length (ES = 1.33), and fluency of students’ writing (ES = 0.48). The findings from this meta-analysis provide support for one of the assumptions underlying the Simple View of Writing (Berninger et al., Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304, 2002): text transcription skills are an important ingredient in writing and writing development.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

  • *Alves, R. A., Limpo, T., Fidalgo, R., Carvalhais, L., Pereira, L. A., & Sao, L. C. (2015). The impact of promoting transcription on early text production: Effects on bursts and pauses, levels of written language, and writing performance. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • *Beam, C. H. (1984). An experimental attempt to improve the handwriting of elementary-school pupils (Unpublished master’s thesis). Miami University, Oxford, OH

  • *Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., Brooks, A., Graham, S. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652-666. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.652

  • *Bruinsma, C., & Niewenhuis, C. W. (1996). Effective teaching writing for the elementary school: An empirical study to detect the effects of a training program. Paper presented at the European Writing Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

  • *Buckley, P. (2012). The impact of handwriting instruction on writing fluency in first grade (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Stanislaus, CA.

  • *Burkhalter, B. B., & Wright, J. P. (1984). Handwriting performance with and without transparent overlays. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 132-135 -->

  • *Carrieres, P., & Plamondon, R. (1994). An interactive handwriting teaching aid. In C. Faure, P. Keuss, G. Lorette, & A. Vinter (Eds.), Advances in handwriting and drawing: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 207-229). Paris, France: Europa Productions.

  • *Case-Smith, J., Holland, T., & White, S. (2014). Effectiveness of a co-taught handwriting-writing program for first grade students. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 34, 30-43. doi:10.3109/01942638.2013.783898

  • *Christensen, C. A. (2005). The role of orthographic-motor integration in the production of creative and well-structured written text for students in secondary school. Educational Psychology, 25, 441-453. doi:10.1080/01443410500042076

  • *Colvin, J. M. (1978). A comparison of two methods of teaching beginning manuscript (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

  • *Daly, C. J., Kelley, G. T., & Krauss, A. (2003). Relationship between visual-motor integration and handwriting skills of children in kindergarten: A modified replication study. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 459-462

  • *Denton, P. L., Cope, S., & Moser, C. (2006). The effects of sensorimotor-based intervention versus therapeutic practice on improving handwriting performance in 6- to 11-year-old children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 16-27

  • *Fairchild, S. H. (1979). The effect of sequenced eye-hand coordination experiences on the young child’s ability to reproduce printed symbols (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

  • *Forster, R. M. (1971). An experiment in teaching transitional cursive handwriting by educational television with teacher attitude toward the teaching of handwriting as a factor (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio University, Athens, OH.

  • *Gabbard, C. (1978). Visual-motor training and performance on a fine motor task by kindergarten children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 950.

  • *Goldstein, W., & Hoban, K. (2000). The effects of occupational therapy student intervention on “at-risk” kindergarten children (Unpublished master’s thesis). Touro College, New York, NY.

  • *Harris, S. J., & Livesey, D. J. (1992). Improving handwriting through kinesthetic sensitivity practice. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 39, 23-27.

  • *Haworth, M. O. (1970). The effect of rhythmic-motor training and gross-motor training on the reading and handwriting abilities of educable mentally retarded children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

  • *Hayes, D. (1982). Handwriting practice: The effects of perceptual prompts. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 169-172.

  • *Headstream, A. E. (1997). The effects of using a color code guide to teach manuscript handwriting to kindergarten children (Unpublished master’s thesis). Mercer University, Atlanta, GA.

  • *Heydorn, B. L. (1984). Treatment versus non-treatment in reduction of symbol reversals by first grade children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 36-38.

  • *Hirsch, E., & Niedermeyer, F. C. (1973). The effects of tracing prompts and discrimination training on kindergarten handwriting performance. Journal of Educational Research, 67, 82-86.

  • *Howe, T., Roston, K. L., Sheu, C., & Hinojosa, J. (2013). Assessing handwriting intervention effectiveness in elementary school students: A two-group controlled study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 19-26. doi:10.5014/ajot.2013.005470

  • *Jackson, K., & Hughes, H. (1978). Effects of relaxation training on cursive handwriting of fourth grade students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 707-712.

  • *Jones, D. (2004). Automaticity of the transcription process in the production of written text (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.

  • *Jones, D., & Christensen, C. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44-49. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.44

  • *Karlsdottir, R. (1996a). Development of cursive handwriting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 659-673.

  • *Karlsdottir, R. (1996b). Print-script as initial handwriting style I: Effects on the development of handwriting. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 40, 161-174. doi:10.1080/0031383960400204

  • *Keinath, K. (2005). The effects of Brain Gym activities on second-grade students’ academic performance and handwriting skills (Unpublished master’s thesis). Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.

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

  • *Kirk, U. (1981). The development and use of rules in the acquisition of perceptual motor skill. Child Development, 52, 299-305.

  • *Kistler, M. D. (1963). A comparison of two methods in the teaching of handwriting (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kutztown State College, Kutztown, PA.

  • *Lamme, L. L., & Ayris, B. M. (1983). Is the handwriting of beginning writers influenced by writing tools? Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 32-38.

  • *Leung, E. K., Trebias, P. V., Hill, D. S., & Cooper, J. O. (1979). Space size and accuracy of first grade students’ manuscript writing. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 79-81.

  • *Logsdon, J. D., & Leggitt, D. (1939). A remedial penmanship program in a junior high. The School Review, 47, 363-373.

  • *Martens, S. K. (2000). Replacing traditional chairs with therapy balls in a first grade classroom: Effect on attention and handwriting (Unpublished master’s thesis). Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

  • *McCormack, M. (2008). A comparison of the effectiveness of two handwriting programs on handwriting legibility (Unpublished master’s thesis). State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

  • *Morin, M., Lavoie, N., & Montesinos, I. (2012). The effects of manuscript, cursive, or manuscript/cursive styles on writing development in grade 2. Language and Literacy, 14(1), 110-124.

  • *Olson, G. H. (1970). The effectiveness of a programmed method of instruction for teaching handwriting skills to migrant children. Paper presented at the national meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, MN. ERIC document ED039062.

  • *Owens, L. L. (2004). The effects of the Handwriting without Tears program on the handwriting of students in inclusive classrooms (Unpublished master’s thesis). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

  • *Peterson, C. Q., & Nelson, D. L. (2003). Effect of an occupational intervention on printing in children with economic disadvantage. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 152-160.

  • *Quillin, S. E. (1973). A handwriting center and its effects on students’ handwriting skills and attitudes of students and teachers toward handwriting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

  • *Reidlinger, W., Candler, C., & Neville, M. (2012). Comparison of differently lined paper on letter production quality in first graders. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 5, 155-164. doi:10.1080/19411243.2012.701544.

  • *Robbins, K. P. (1996). Comparison of two handwriting remediation techniques and their effects on the rate and quality of handwriting skills (Unpublished master’s thesis). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

  • *Rock, E. O. (1986). The effect of initial instruction in cursive and manuscript on children’s handwriting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • *Rutberg, J. L. (1998). A comparison of two treatments for remediating handwriting difficulties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

  • *Saidel, L. F. (1984). The effects of calligraphic tuition on handwriting skills attainment in grades three, five, and seven (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • *Salls, J., Benson, J. D., Hansen, M. A., Cole, K., & Pielielek, A. (2013). A comparison of the Handwriting Without Tears program and Peterson Directed Handwriting program on handwriting performance in typically developing first grade students. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 6, 131-142. doi:10.1080/19411243.2013.810958.

  • *Schneck, C., Shasby, S., Myers, C., & Smith, M. L. (2012). Handwriting without tears versus teacher-designed handwriting instruction in first grade classrooms. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, and Early Intervention, 5, 31-42. doi:10.1080/19411243.2012.675759.

  • *Shaw, D. M. (2011). The effect of two handwriting approaches, D’Nealian and Sunform, on kindergartners’ letter formations. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39, 125-132. doi:10.1007/s10643-011-0444-2.

  • *Shimel, K., Candler, C., & Neville-Smith, M. (2009). Comparison of cursive handwriting instruction programs among students without identified problems. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 29, 170-181. doi:10.1080/01942630902784738

  • *Shorter, L. L. (2001). Keyboarding versus handwriting: Effects on the compositional fluency and compositional quality of third grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL.

  • *Smith, M. E., & Rothwell, H. A. (1963). A study of the individual diagnostic approach to the teaching of handwriting in the sixth grade (Unpublished master’s thesis). Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ.

  • *Smith, M. H. (1977). The effect of different size writing tools on the handwriting performance of the kindergarten child (Unpublished master’s thesis). Florida Technical University, Tampa, FL.

  • *Sovik, N., & Teulings, H. (1983). Real-time feedback of handwriting in a teaching program. Acta Psychologica, 54, 285-291.

  • *Sovik, N., Arntzen, O., & Thygesen, R. (1986). Effects of feedback training on ‘normal’ and dysgraphic students. In H. S. R. Kao, G. P. van Galen, & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 121-132). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

  • *Ste-Marie, D. M., Clark, S. E., Findlay, L. C., & Latimer, A. E. (2004). High levels of contextual interference enhance handwriting skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 115-126. doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.1.115-126

  • *Sudsawad, P., Trombly, C. A., Henderson, A., & Tickle-Degnen, L. (2002). Testing the effect of kinesthetic training on handwriting performance in first-grade children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 26-34.

  • *Sullivan, J. W. (1962). A comparison of the achievement of students using two different methods of study in handwriting (Unpublished master’s thesis). Mankato State College, Mankato, MN.

  • *Swenberg, L. R. (1963). A comparative study of two approaches to the teaching of handwriting at the third grade level (Unpublished master’s thesis). Mankato State College, Mankato, MN.

  • *Taras, H., Brennan, J., Gilbert, A., & Reed, H. E. (2011). Effectiveness of occupational therapy strategies for teaching handwriting skills to kindergarten children. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, and Early Intervention, 4, 236-246. doi:10.1080/19411243.2011.629554.

  • *Veena, A. S., Romate, J., & Bhogle, S. (2002). Improving children’s handwriting: An operant model approach. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 28, 25-30.

  • *Vinter, A., & Chartrel, E. (2010). Effects of different types of learning on handwriting movements in young children. Learning and Instruction, 20, 476-486. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.07.001

  • *Wade, R. L. (2002). The effects of the Handwriting without Tears writing program on writing performance in kindergartners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY.

  • *Waggoner, J., La Nunziata, L. J., Hill, D. S., & Cooper, J. O. (1981). Space size and accuracy of kindergarten and first grade students’ manuscript handwriting. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 182-184.

  • *Waller, L. A. (2004). Examination of the effects of increased handwriting instruction time on printing legibility of first grade children (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.

  • *Walser, I. H. (1981). The effects of visual discrimination training and reproduction training on manuscript handwriting performance (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.

  • *Weintraub, N., Yinon, M., Hirsch, I., & Parush, S. (2009). Effectiveness of sensorimotor and task-oriented handwriting intervention in elementary school-aged students with handwriting difficulties. OTJR: Occupation, Participation, and Health, 29, 125-134. doi:10.3928/15394492-20090611-05

  • *Wright, C. D., & Wright, J. P. (1980). Handwriting: The effectiveness of copying from moving versus still models. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 95-98.

  • *Zentall, S. S., & Kruczek, T. (1988). The attraction of color for active attention-problem children. Exceptional Children, 54, 357-362.

  • *Zwicker, J. G., & Hadwin, A. F. (2009). Cognitive versus multisensory approaches to handwriting intervention: A randomized controlled trial. OTJR: Occupation, Participation, and Health, 29, 40-48. doi:10.3928/15394492-20090101-06.

  • Abbot, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary- and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 478–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M., Kochmann, R., McQuistion, A., & Martin, S. (2004). Effectiveness of preparatory handwriting activities on manuscript speed and legibility of second grade students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bismarck, ND: University of Mary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Askov, E., Otto, W., & Askov, W. (1970). A decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect. Journal of Educational Research, 64, 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58. doi:10.3102/00346543074001029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bara, F., & Gentaz, E. (2011). Haptics in teaching handwriting: The role of perceptual and visuo-motor skills. Human Movement Science, 30, 745–759. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2010.05.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggs, V. L. (1931). The study of the relative merits of the drill method and the diagnostic method of teaching handwriting (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

  • Beretvas, S. N. (2010). Meta-analysis. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewers’ guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 255–264). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112. doi:10.2307/1511269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., & Graham, S. (1998). Language by hand: A synthesis of a decade of research in handwriting. Handwriting Review, 12, 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). Scientific practitioner: Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57–79. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(91)90016-K.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtain, G., Hawkins, J. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays. Educational Psychology, 25, 99–107. doi:10.1080/0144341042000294912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M., & Nouri, H. (2000). Effect size for ANOVA designs (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 907–919. doi:10.1037/a0012656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89–98. doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4-6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 494–518. doi:10.1086/651193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (2009). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 357–376). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (1992). Issues in handwriting instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98. doi:10.2307/1511268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 13(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1703–1743. doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospect from l980 to l994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). Development of handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1-9. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Cappizi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1015–1042. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamstra-Bletz, L., & Blote, A. (1993). A longitudinal study on dysgraphic handwriting in primary school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 689–699. doi:10.1177/002221949302601007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 341–370. doi:10.3102/1076998606298043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 60–87. doi:10.3102/0162373707299706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P. T., & Green S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.1.0). Retrieved from: http://handbook.cochrane.org

  • Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

  • Hoy, M., Egan, M., & Feder, K. (2011). A systematic review of interventions to improve handwriting. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78, 13–25. doi:10.2182/cjot.2011.78.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiuhara, S., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160. doi:10.1037/a0013097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. (2008). Writing, technology and teens. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL3.pdf.pdf

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2007). Handwriting: What do we know and what do we need to know? Literacy, 41, 10–15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00453.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meulenbroek, R., & Van Gemmert, A. (Eds.) (2003). Advances in the study of drawing and handwriting. Human Movement Science, 22, 131-220.

  • Mueller, P., & Oppenheimer, D. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168. doi:10.1177/0956797614524581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, M., Askov, E., & Fairchild, S. (1980). Another decade of research in handwriting: Progress and prospect in the 1970s. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 283–298. doi:10.1080/00220671.1980.10885253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2006). The state of educational intervention research. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1–19. doi:10.1348/000709905X66035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, J. L. (2007). The impact of short-term use of Criterion SM on writing skills in ninth grade (No. RR-07-07). Princeton, NJ: ETS. Retrieved from www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-07-07.pdf.

  • Rosenbaum, S., Weiss, P. L., & Parush, S. (2003). Product and process evaluation of handwriting difficulties. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 41–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scannell, D., & Marshall, J. (1966). The effect of selected composition errors on grades assigned to essay examinations. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 125–130. doi:10.3102/00028312003002125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 175–210). San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (2009). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 257–278). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Robinson, L., & Congxiao, L. (1999). ES: A computer program for effect size calculation. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, E. (1929). The effect of the quality of penmanship on grades. Journal of Educational Research, 19, 102–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmerman, S., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: How important are internal and external validity? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 221–236. doi:10.1177/002221940103400303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Measures inherent to treatments in program effectiveness reviews. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 370–380. doi:10.1080/19345747.2011.558986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2014). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid = 19.

  • Valentine, J., Pigott, T., & Rothstein, H. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 215–247. doi:10.3102/1076998609346961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wann, J., Wing, A. W., & Sovik, N. (Eds.) (1991). The development of graphic skills: Research, perspectives, and educational implications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Watson, D. (1989). Defining and describing whole language. Elementary School Journal, 90, 128–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yinon, M., & Weintraub, N. (2000). Intervention programs for improving handwriting performance: A review. The Israeli Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9, 17–35. doi:10.2307/23467341.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA

    Tanya Santangelo

  2. Arizona State University, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Steve Graham

Authors
  1. Tanya Santangelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Graham.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6

Table 6 Summary of studies not included in statistically combined ESs
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santangelo, T., Graham, S. A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Handwriting Instruction. Educ Psychol Rev 28, 225–265 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9335-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9335-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation