The Impact of Supplemental Handwriting and Spelling Instruction with First Grade Students Who Do Not Acquire Transcription Skills as Rapidly as Peers: A Randomized Control Trial
Graham, Steve; Harris, Karen R.; Adkins, Mary (2018). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v31 n6 p1273-1294 Jun 2018. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1180158
-
examining30Students, grade1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Spelling common words |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
23.40 |
14.07 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Composition vocabulary |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.06 |
-0.01 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alphabet handwriting fluency |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.07 |
0.13 |
Yes |
|
|
Paragraph handwriting fluency |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.93 |
6.67 |
Yes |
|
|
Test of Written Spelling |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.60 |
8.93 |
Yes |
|
|
Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery III - Writing Fluency subtest |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.07 |
-0.80 |
Yes |
|
|
Handwriting legibility |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.27 |
-0.50 |
Yes |
|
|
Composition length |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
58.60 |
53.12 |
No |
-- |
|
Spelling in context |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.19 |
0.28 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Composition quality |
Supplemental spelling and handwriting instruction - Graham et al. (2018) vs. Supplemental phonological awareness instruction – Graham et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.63 |
3.80 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
7% English language learners -
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
Urban
-
Race Black 73% Other or unknown 7% White 20% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 70% No FRPL 30%
Study Details
Setting
The study was set in 14 first grade classrooms in 4 schools in a single mid-Atlantic school district in a large metropolitan area. Interventionists worked one-on-one with the students in a quiet space in the school, not in the classroom.
Study sample
To qualify for inclusion in the study, first grade students had to score at least two-thirds of a standard deviation below the normative sample score of 90 on the Spelling subtest of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test and at least two-thirds of a standard deviation below their grade mean for handwriting fluency. Thirty students were included in the analytic sample.
Intervention Group
Interventionists were 6 graduate students, and each instructor taught students in both conditions. The intervention consisted of 8 units, each focusing on 2 alphabet letters and 2 or more spelling patterns. There were six 20-minute lessons per unit (48 lessons total). Each unit was taught over 2 weeks, with lessons occurring 3 times per week. The first 5 lessons included both spelling and handwriting; the final lesson in each unit was focused just on spelling. Handwriting instruction included tracing, copying, and writing. Spelling instruction focused on common spelling patterns. The intervention also included phonics, word-building, word study (including pronunciation), and composition.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received an 8-unit phonological awareness intervention, also with six 20-minute lessons per unit. The activities were from a published phonological awareness curriculum (Ladders to Literacy) and also included common folktales.
Support for implementation
Instructors received intensive practice applying each condition. Additionally, instructors met with the study's first author to discuss any issues that arose during implementation, which tended to be rare. Instructors were given a checklist for each lesson.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).