ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 7(12), 947-954
Journal Homepage: - www.journalijar.com
Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/10237
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/10237
THE IMPORTANCE OF HANDWRITING IN EDUCATION
Termez branch of Tashkent State Technical University.
Manuscript Info Abstract
Received: 12 October 2019
Final Accepted: 14 November 2019
Published: December 2019
Boys, Handwriting, Literacy, Writing,
Handwriting has a low status and profile in literacy education and in
recent years has attracted little attention from teachers, policy makers
or researchers into mainstream educational processes. This article
identifies a substantial programme of research into handwriting,
including studies located in the domains of special needs education and
psychology, which suggest that it is time to re-evaluate the importance
of handwriting in the teaching of literacy. Explorations of the way
handwriting affects composing has opened up new avenues for
research, screening and intervention, which have the potential to make
a significant contribution to children’s writing progress. In particular,
the role of orthographic motor integration and automaticity in
handwriting is now seen as of key importance in composing. Evidence
from existing studies suggests that handwriting intervention
programmes may have a real impact on the composing skills of young
writers. In particular, they could positively affect the progress of the
many boys who struggle with writing throughout the primary school
Copy Right, IJAR, 2019,. All rights reserved.
There has been little significant educational research into handwriting in England since the work of Sassoon et al
(1986) and Alston and Taylor (1987). Even the available research reviews (Graham & Weintraub, 1996) were
written over a decade ago and include little evidence from a British context. The way handwriting is taught in
English mainstream schooling is based on research and writing undertaken during the mid-1980s and early 1990s.
During the eighties and early nineties, a number of changes affected the teaching of handwriting. Firstly, a very
significant experiment took place in schools in England, involving a fundamental change in the handwriting script
taught to children in the primary years. Peters’ research into spelling (1985) emphasised that English spelling
provided a high degree of visual regularity and highlighted the link between visual and kinaesthetic learning of
spellings. A strong theoretical case was thus made for a link between correct spelling and the use of fluent, joined up
handwriting. By learning the movements of common spelling patterns by hand (kinaesthetically) as well as by eye, it
was suggested (Cripps & Cox, 1989; Peters & Smith, 1993) that writers improved their chances of producing correct
spellings. The popularisation of this theory in schools through spelling and handwriting schemes coincided with (or
caused) a change in the handwriting of children all over the country as handwriting schemes based on this theory
advocated the use of an alphabet including exit strokes right from the beginning of writing teaching, and the joining
of letters as early as possible (Cripps, 1988). Interestingly, there has been almost no empirical research to examine
Corresponding Author:- Jakhongir Shaturaev
Address:- Termez branch of Tashkent State Technical University.
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 7(12), 947-954
the claims about the contribution of handwriting to correct spelling, to measure the effects of beginning writing
using different scripts or to examine the effects of early joining.
The importance of handwriting: writing assessment:
Whilst handwriting style streamlined across schools in England during the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was also
put firmly in its place in terms of its importance relative to other aspects of writing. The National Curriculum for
England (DfEE/QCA, 2000), for example, treats handwriting succinctly and deals with the development of
movement and style, with no mention of speed or efficiency. The attainment target for writing at level 4 (the target
for 11 year olds) demands only that: “Handwriting style is fluent, joined and legible”. No mention is made of speed.
Handwriting is statutorily assessed as part of the Standard Assessment Tasks and Tests (SATs), the marking
schemes for which allocate up to 40 marks for writing at age 7 (Key Stage 1) and 50 marks at age 11 (Key Stage 2).
At both ages, up to 3 marks can be awarded for handwriting. The assessment for these three marks is made on a
sample of handwriting done during a composition assessment and is a product analysis. Fluency is taken to mean
evidence of the effective joining of letters and speed of writing is not included in the assessment. In short, this is a
very imprecise assessment of handwriting style, not of handwriting efficiency.
The National Literacy Strategy also gives minimal attention to handwriting. It was included in the word level
objectives in the NLS Framework for Teaching (DfEE, 1998) from reception year (age 4-5) until Year 4 (aged 9),
after which handwriting does not appear as an objective. The assumption that handwriting will have been mastered
by this time is common across publications about writing (e.g. Wyse, 1998; Medwell et al, 2001; Nicholls et al,
1989). In the light of research in the areas of neuroscience, cognitive psychology and special needs education, it is
time to question this assumption and examine how research into handwriting can offer clues to improving
The importance of handwriting: teaching writing:
One reason for such a lack of attention to handwriting has been the perspectives on writing that have been popular in
schools and the emphasis (or lack of emphasis) these perspectives have placed upon handwriting. In early years’
education, evidence that children can write meaningful texts before they have mastered the writing system (Teale &
Sulzby, 1986) changed the way researchers and teachers looked at children’s early attempts at writing (Temple et al,
1982). Analysis of children’s early writing for evidence of understandings about the language system (Clay, 1975,),
spelling (Gentry, 1981) and audience (Hall, 1987; Czerniewska, 1992) shifted attention away from the teaching of
writing through copying, with its emphasis on correct letter formation and legibility.
Emergent writing (Hall, 1987; Teale & Sulzby, 1986), placed the focus of attention firmly on the meanings children
were able to create in their writing. Children were encouraged to write freely and to use their emerging, but
incomplete, understandings of language and writing skills to express themselves in writing. This was a corrective to
earlier emphasis on neatness and correct letter formation, which undoubtedly hindered the composition of beginning
The teaching of writing to older children has been strongly influenced by theoretical perspectives that emphasise the
difference between composing text and transcribing text. Graves’ (1983) account of the writing process as a series of
stages has been highly significant for theorised pedagogies of writing, even if these theories have not quite had the
practical effects that have been claimed for them (Medwell, 1998). Cognitive models of the writing process, such as
that of Hayes and Flowers (1980), also stress the planning and self-monitoring required by the writer, but these too
have had limited influence on mainstream school practice. More recently, a genre focused approach to writing,
emphasising the direct teaching of the structures of socially significant texts, was popularized by the work of Wray
and Lewis (1997) and included in the requirements of the National Literacy Strategy (1998). In none of these
perspectives on writing and its teaching does handwriting play a significant role. Indeed, current perspectives often
explicitly assign handwriting to a peripheral role in writing success.
A composition-led view of the writing process is very much part of the mainstream culture of literacy teaching in
England. The National Curriculum for English (DfEE, 2000) requires that children be taught to plan, draft, revise,
proof-read and present their work, a direct reflection of the process approach, and this is sustained in the National
Literacy Strategy (DfEE, 1998). Emphasis upon composing may, at times, have drawn attention away from
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 7(12), 947-954
The importance of handwriting: the research evidence:
Despite its empirical rigour and replication, and its central concern with how children learn to write, the substantial
body of cognitive psychological research on the writing process has had little impact on classroom practice. This
may be because the largely experimental and non-naturalist design of such research makes its direct classroom
application problematic. However, in psychology, neuropsychology and special needs education the substantial
research into handwriting that has taken place in the last decade may offer insights into the composing processes of
mainstream children. It may also ensure that the role of handwriting in composition is reconsidered and even the
nature of handwriting itself reconceptualised.
A considerable amount of this research has focused on explorations of the role of working memory in writing.
Working memory denotes the temporary storage of the information necessary for carrying out tasks. Long-term
memory can store virtually unlimited amounts of material for many years, but working memory can hold only a few
items for a short time - it is a limited resource. Kellogg (1996; 1999; 2001) and Hayes (1996) have both given a
central role to working memory in their very influential models of the writing process. Understanding the ways in
which different writing processes draw on the same limited working memory resources could explain why some
writing processes are more difficult than others and how these processes may interfere with each other.
Identifying the role of working memory in writing may help us to understand the interference among memory
processes that contend for the same scarce memory resources, in this case, the way handwriting may actually affect
composition. The findings of Gathercole et al (2004) suggest that working memory is particularly associated with
the literacy scores of younger children. If young writers have to devote large amounts of working memory to the
control of lower-level processes such as handwriting, they may have little working memory capacity left for higher-
level processes such as idea generation, vocabulary selection, monitoring the progress of mental plans and revising
text against these plans.
Individuals can generally conduct only one cognitive task requiring attention at a time (Sweller, 1988; Sweller &
Chandler, 1994). This means that the way an individual manages cognitive resources to facilitate all the different,
attention-requiring aspects of a writing task is crucial to their success at writing (Saada-Robert, 1999). Christiansen
(2002) identifies two main strategies to limit the demands on working memory. The first is to sequence tasks so that
only one task is undertaken at a time. This has been a popular way to manage writing processes in classrooms and
planning, drafting, revising etc. have been sequenced as steps in the writing process for many children, in an attempt
to reduce their competing demands on young writers. However, models of writing (e.g. Hayes & Flower, 1980)
suggest that writing processes are recursive and that writing is not a step-by-step linear process at all. In this case,
sequencing tasks so that only one is undertaken at a time is unlikely to be a successful strategy for limiting demand
on working memory at a cognitive level, since writing simply does not proceed that way. Moreover, in writing it is
hardly possible to isolate or defer the handwriting element, since without it, nothing would actually be written!
An alternative solution to the problem of limited working memory capacity is to make some processes, such as
handwriting, automatic, in order to free up cognitive resources to deal with higher level processes. La Berge &
Samuels, (1974) define automaticity as having been achieved when a process can be effected swiftly, accurately and
without the need for conscious attention. The development of skill in writing may require the automatisation of
lower-level skills so that they use less of the available working-memory resources.
A major programme of research undertaken over the last ten to fifteen years (e.g. Berninger et al, 2006; Berninger,
1994; Berninger & Graham, 1998) has investigated the role of handwriting in writing and its findings are extremely
interesting. Firstly, it has been established that handwriting is far from a purely motor act. Berninger and Graham
(1998) stress that it is “language by hand” and point out that their research suggests that orthographic and memory
processes (the ability to recall letter shapes) contribute more to handwriting than do motor skills (Berninger &
Orthographic-motor integration of handwriting - that is the ability to call to mind and write letter shapes, groups of
letters and words efficiently and effectively without allocation of cognitive attention, appears to be a very significant
part of writing that has been largely overlooked in education. It involves mentally coding and rehearsing visual
representations of these patterns and integrating them with motor patterns (Berninger, 1994). There is a growing
body of research which suggests that handwriting is critical to the generation of creative and well-structured written
text and has an impact not only on fluency but also on the quality of composing (Berninger & Swanson, 1994;
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 7(12), 947-954
Graham et al, 1997). Lack of automaticity in orthographic-motor integration can seriously hamper the ability of
young children to express ideas in text. (Berninger & Swanson, 1994; De La Paz & Graham, 1995; Graham, 1990).
Studies in this area have experimented with the removal of some of the competing demands for children’s cognitive
attention during writing. De La Paz and Graham (1995), for example, found that when the children were able to
dictate their texts to an adult, thus freeing them from the task of handwriting, the quality of their composition
significantly improved. Other studies have confirmed this effect in primary aged children (e.g., Hidi & Hidyard,
1983; McCutchen, 1996, 1998; Scardamalia et al, 1982).
Research suggests that orthographic-motor integration accounts for more than 50% of the variance in written
language performance in children. Christensen and Jones (2000) put this as high as 67% for the 7-8 year old children
they studied. Some studies have suggested that the influence of orthographic-motor integration declines with age
(Berninger & Swanson, 1994), but there are suggestions that it continues to exert an influence on writing in
secondary school pupils (e.g. Christensen & Jones, 2000) and even in adults (Bourdin & Fayol, 2002).
If handwriting can have such an impact on writers’ abilities to generate sophisticated text, it appears critical that
children develop smooth and efficient handwriting. This raises two important questions. Firstly, for how many, and
for which, children might inefficient handwriting be affecting their composition? Secondly, what evidence is there
that teaching can make a difference to children’s performance in handwriting and in composition?
The importance of knowing who may have problems:
Ascertaining the numbers of children for whom lack of automaticity is a problem is difficult in Britain. Statutory
assessments do not assess handwriting speed and there is no national screening for handwriting problems. Graham
and Weintraub (1996) estimate that between 12 and 20% of school aged children experience handwriting
difficulties, and other estimates have been as high as 44% (Alston, 1985; Rubin & Henderson, 1982), although these
figures are based on teacher estimates and must be viewed with caution. Barnett et al (2006) suggest a figure as low
as 5% for schools in south east England, but this is based on teacher report in a very small survey and again must be
treated with caution. But if these figures are even approximately correct, it suggests that lack of handwriting
automaticity may affect a significant number of primary and secondary aged children. Such an unrecognised lack of
automaticity may interfere with the composing processes of these children. There is no evidence of concern about,
screening of or intervention in this aspect of writing in the British system.
Although we do not have enough evidence to estimate what proportion of children may be experiencing handwriting
difficulties in Britain, the research does suggest a strong gender effect. Boys are more likely to be identified as
having handwriting problems than girls (Hamstra-Bletz & Blote, 1993; Rubin & Henderson, 1982) and research in
the 1980s and 90s confirmed that girls are generally better handwriters than boys (Graham & Miller, 1980) both on
measures of overall quality and of letter formation (Hamstra-Bletz & Blote, 1990; Ziviani & Elkins, 1984). Girls
also tend to write faster than boys (Berninger & Fuller, 1992; Biemiller et al, 1993; Ziviani, 1984). This is an
important detail if handwriting does have an impact on children’s ability to compose. If boys are less likely to obtain
the necessary automaticity in handwriting at the expected age, it may be that this interferes with their ability to
At present, there is considerable concern in Britain about boys’ underachievement in writing (UKLA/PNS, 2004).
In the annual Standard Assessment Tests and Tasks, boys consistently do worse than girls at writing (Bearne &
Warrington, 2003) but the data that is collected cannot reveal how handwriting is implicated in this. The issue of
boys’ handwriting has not been a focus of the projects aimed at addressing underperformance in writing by boys. A
recent project in this area (UKLA/PNS, 2004) did not mention handwriting at all, despite the fact that the aspects of
writing most often cited by the boys in the study as a reason for disliking writing were technical – including
handwriting and spelling.
For children who are slow to develop handwriting automaticity (as opposed to neatness), handwriting is slower and
demands more effort. This creates what Stanovich (1986) has called, in reading, the “Matthew effect” whereby those
who are more able, (given the above evidence in handwriting - usually girls) achieve more successful practice and,
in the case of orthographic-motor integration, have more attention available for composing processes. In turn, the
less able handwriters have less opportunity to engage with higher order composing processes and to make progress
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 7(12), 947-954
The importance of interventions:
If a lack of orthographic-motor integration can have such serious consequences for the development of composing
skills, it is important to know whether intervention can prevent these difficulties. There have been some studies of
orthographic-motor integration to try to ascertain the effects of focused handwriting practice. Two studies
undertaken in Australia (Jones & Christensen 1999; Christensen, 2005) used a relatively simple alphabet writing
task designed by Berninger et al (1991) to measure orthographic-motor integration and to identify children with
automaticity problems. One study measured the orthographic-motor integration, reading and written expression of
114 children in Year 2 (aged 7) before and after an eight week long handwriting programme. The children
undertaking the programme showed significant improvement in their handwriting and, crucially, in their composing
skills. More than half the variance in scores on written expression was accounted for by orthographic-motor
integration, even when reading scores were controlled. Christensen also reports a study of 50 older children (year 8
and 9 in secondary school) whose orthographic-motor integration and written expression were measured before and
after an intensive handwriting programme. A matched control group did journal writing for a similar period.
Although both the journal and handwriting groups were equivalent at pre-test, the scores for the handwriting group
after eight weeks of intervention were significantly better on all post-test measures, for example, 70% higher in
orthographic-motor integration and 46% higher in quality of written text than the journal group. The handwriting
group also wrote approximately twice as much text as the journal writers. These are startling findings at a secondary
level, where it might be expected that children who have not achieved automaticity would already have experienced
demoralizing failure. These studies offer strong evidence that handwriting intervention can make a difference to the
handwriting and, more importantly, the composition of children with poor automaticity. By improving their ability
to produce letters automatically, these young writers freed up their attention for other writing processes.
The research suggests that the role of handwriting in writing has been underestimated in mainstream education. The
concentration has been on the benefits to spelling of well formed, joined handwriting, and the necessity for speed
and automaticity has been neglected in our handwriting pedagogy. Educators have prioritised composing processes
in writing, in itself not necessarily a bad thing. But in doing so we may have neglected a skill which makes a strong
contribution to the composing we so value. The research suggests that it is time to re-consider.
Handwriting, and in particular the automaticity of letter production, appears to facilitate higher order composing
processes by freeing up working memory to deal with the complex tasks of planning, organizing, revising and
regulating the production of text. Research suggests that automatic letter writing is the single best predictor of length
and quality of written composition in the primary years (Graham et al, 1997) in secondary school and even in the
post-compulsory education years (Connelly et al, 2006; Jones, 2004; Peverley, 2006).
Enshrined in our pedagogic theory, practice and policy is the assumption that handwriting becomes automatic
relatively early on in writers’ development. This assumption unfortunately remains untested, as national testing does
not assess handwriting speed or fluency and addresses only writing style and neatness. We may be assessing the
wrong aspects of handwriting and failing to assess an aspect which is crucial.
We know that a significant number of children experience handwriting difficulties throughout their schooling,
although for most these are probably not judged as sufficiently serious to justify remedial action. More of these
children are boys than girls and their handwriting difficulties are likely to impact upon their ability to compose
written language. There is evidence that intervention to teach handwriting can improve not only the handwriting of
these children, but also their written composition.
There are a number of ways forward. We need to examine in more detail whether the findings about orthographic-
motor intervention can be generalised to the British context, where the extent of handwriting difficulty is unknown
and children are taught a simpler, more efficient script than those generally taught in America. One small study
(Connelly and Hurst, 2001) has suggested such generalisation is likely but a much larger sample and range of age
groups is necessary. We need to assess the extent and distribution of handwriting difficulties by looking at levels of
automaticity in primary and secondary school pupils. Establishing some bench-marks for orthographic motor-
integration through the school years would be the first step towards looking for a simple screening instrument that
could identify those children with handwriting difficulties who might benefit from interventions to improve their
automatic production of letters. For such children, a short handwriting programme may be what they need to
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 7(12), 947-954
improve their composing. A research programme to consider what intervention might be most effective could then
be undertaken. Such a programme has the potential to benefit young writers, particularly boys, who struggle to
compose throughout their primary and secondary schooling.
Handwriting has not been an important aspect of literacy for teachers in the last decade, but it has been the subject of
important research. It is time for the research in this area to be made more accessible to educators and for it to be
considered in the planning of pedagogies for struggling writers.
1. Alston, J. and Taylor, J. (1987). Handwriting theory, research, and practice. New York: Nichols.
2. Alston, J. (1985) The handwriting of seven to nine year olds. British Journal of Special Educational Needs, 12,
3. Barnett, A., Stainthorp, R., Henderson, S. and Scheib, B. (2006) Handwriting policy and practice in English
primary schools. Institute of Education, London
4. Bearne, E. and Warrington, M. (2003). Boys and Writing. Literacy Today, 35,
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Pubs/bearne.html [12th May, 2006]
5. Berninger, V. W, and Amtmann, D. (2004). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and
continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: research into practice. In L.
Swanson, K. Harris, and S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning disabilities (pp. 345–363). New
York, Guilford Press.
6. Berninger, V., and Fuller, E. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional fluency:
Implications for diagnosis of writing disabilities in primary grade children. Journal of School Psychology, 30,
7. Berninger, V. W., and Graham, S. (1998). Language by hand: A synthesis of a decade of research on
handwriting. Handwriting Review, 12, 11–25.
8. Berninger, V. W., and Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to
explain beginning and developing writing. In E. C. Butterfield (Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process
theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Hampton Hill, UK: JAI Press.
9. Berninger, V. W., Mizokawa, D. T., and Bragg, R. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing
disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 29, 57–59.
10. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R.D, Jones, J., Wolf, B., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Shimada, S. and
Apel, K. (2006) Early development of language by hand: Composing, reading, listening and speaking
connections; Three letter writing modes and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29 (1),
11. Berninger, V. W. (1994). Reading and writing acquisition: A developmental neuropsychological perspective.
Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.
12. Biemiller, A., Regan, E., and Gang, B. (1993). Studies in the development of writing speed: Age, task, and
individual differences. Unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
13. Bourdin, B.; Fayol, M. (2002) Even in adults, written production is still more costly than oral production.
International Journal of Psychology 37 (4), 219-227
14. Christensen. C. A., and Jones, D. (2000). Handwriting: An underestimated skill in the development of written
language. Handwriting Today, 2, 56–69.
15. 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 (5), 441-453
16. Clay, M. (1975) What did I write? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
17. Connelly, V., and Hurst, G. (2001) The influence on handwriting fluency on writing quality in later primary and
early secondary education. Handwriting Today 2, 5–57.
18. Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., and Barnes, J. (2006). Contribution of lower order skills to the
written composition of college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 175–
19. Cripps, C. and Cox, R. (1989) Joining the ABC: How and why handwriting and spelling should be taught
together. Cambridge: LDA Publications
20. Cripps, C. (1988) A hand for spelling. Cambridge: LDA Publications
21. Czerniewska, P. (1992) Learning about writing Oxford: Blackwell
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 7(12), 947-954
22. De La Paz, S., and Graham, S. (1995). Dictation: Applications to writing for students with learning disabilities.
In T. Scruggs and M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disorders (Vol. 9, pp. 227–247).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
23. Department for Education and Employment (1998) The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for teaching.
London: Department for Education and Employment.
24. Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000) The National
Curriculum Handbook for Primary Teachers in England: Key Stages 1 and 2. London: HMSO
25. Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C. and Stegmann, Z. (2004) Working memory skills and educational
attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 18, 1-16.
26. Gentry, J. R. (1981) Learning to spell developmentally. The Reading Teacher 34 (4), 378-81
27. Graham, S., and Miller, L. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on
Exceptional Children 13, 1-16.
28. Graham, S., and Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to
1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 7-87.
29. Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.
30. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., and Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in
composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology
89 (1), 170–182.
31. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
32. Hall, N. (1987) The emergence of literacy. Sevenoaks: Hodder and Stoughton.
33. Hamstra-Bletz, L. and Blote, A., (1993). A longitudinal study on dysgraphic handwriting in primary school.
Journal of Learning Disability 26, 689–699.
34. Hayes, J., and Flowers, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg and E.
Steinberg (Eds.) Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new model of cognition and affect in writing. In C. Levy and S. Ransdell (Eds.) The
science of writing (pp. 1-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Hidi, S. and Hilyard, A. (1984) The comparison of oral and written productions in two discourse modes,’ in
Discourse Processes, 6, 2, 91-105.
37. Jones, D., and Christensen, C. (1999). The relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’
ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44-49.
38. Jones, D. (2004) Automaticity of the transcription process in the production of written text. Unpublished Doctor
of Philosophy Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
39. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. Levy and S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science
of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
40. Kellogg, R. T. (1999). Components of working memory in text production. In Torrance, M. and Jeffery, G. C.
(Eds.) The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory in text production (pp. 42-
61). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
41. Kellogg, R. T. (2001) Competition for working memory among writing processes, American Journal of
Psychology, 114, pp. 175-191.
42. La Berge, D., and Samuels, S. J. (1974) Toward a theory of automatic information processing. Cognitive
Psychology, 6, 283–323.
43. McCutchen, D. (1988) "Functional automaticity" in children's writing: A problem in metacognitive control.
Written Communication, 5, 306-324.
44. McCutchen, D. (1996) A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology
Review, 8, 299–325.
45. Medwell, J., Moore, G., Wray, D. and Griffiths, V. (2001) Primary English: Knowledge and Understanding.
Exeter: Learning Matters
46. Medwell, J. (1998) The context of children’s writing in junior classes unpublished PhD thesis, Exeter:
University of Exeter
47. Nicholls, J., Bauers, A., Pettit, D., Redgwell, V., Seaman, E. and Watson, G. (1989) Beginning Writing Milton
Keynes: Open University Press
48. Peters, M. (1985) Spelling caught or taught: A new look. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
49. Peters, M. and Smith, B. (1993) Spelling in context Slough: NFER Nelson
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 7(12), 947-954
50. Peverley, S. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Developmental Neuropsychology,
29, 197– 216.
51. Rubin, N. and. Henderson S.E (1982). Two sides of the same coin: Variation in teaching methods and failure to
learn to write. Special Education: Forward Trends, 9, 17–24.
52. Saada-Robert, M. (1999) Effective means for learning to manage cognitive load in second grade school writing:
a case study. Learning and Instruction, 9, 189-208
53. Sassoon, R., Nimmo-Smith, I., and Wing, A. (1986). An analysis of children’s penholds. In Kao, H. van Galen,
G. and Hoosain R. (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary research in handwriting (pp. 93–106). Amsterdam:
54. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., and Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In
Nystrand, M. (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp. 173–
210). New York: Academic Press.
55. Stanovich, K. (1986) Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-470
56. Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12,
57. Sweller, J. (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 247–285.
58. Teale, W. H., and Sulzby, E. (Eds.) (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
59. Temple, C., Nathan, R., Burris, N. and Temple, F, (1982) The beginnings of writing (second edition) Newton,
MA: Allyn and Bacon
60. United Kingdom Literacy Association/ Primary National Strategy (2004) Raising boys’ achievements in writing
61. Wray, D. & Lewis, M. (1997) Extending Literacy London: Routledge
62. Wyse, D. (1998) Primary Writing. Milton Keynes: Open University Press
63. Ziviani, J. and Elkins, J. (1984). An evaluation of handwriting performance. Educational Review, 36, 249–261.
64. Ziviani, J., (1984) Some elaborations on handwriting speed in 7- to 14-year-olds. Perceptual and Motor Skills